Einstein after 100 years...

Gung I find this stuff most interesting, and many thanks. However, some of its assertions are questionable. For instance, the slowing of a clock by motion or gravitation has been demonstrated repeatedly

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=relativity+slowing+of+moving+atomic+clock

As for action at a distance, I can't believe these ruminations conclusive (yes, no, is anything conclusive). However because yardwork calls I must apologize for not sitting through it

....most such links much too time-consuming, should be condensed in text for the speed-reader...


Incidentally, my long interest in relativity has prompted me to wonder if Einstein was only partly right: I myself have a most ridiculous theory that questions simultaneity itself, which if you're at all interested

http://able2know.org/topic/187876-1

It suggests that simultaneity itself is a relative concept, perhaps also the speed of light (so I call it "relative relativity") and also resolves the Twin Paradox to the complete satisfaction of the intuition. But don't reject it on the basis of my hasty conclusion that the speed of light could be infinite, a claim I withdraw in later OP's

Then, Gung, there's this'n'

http://able2know.org/topic/195798-1

So, you take some ultra-sensitive clock up to 100,000' and fly it around the Earth a couple of times, and you don't think that's gonna affect the CLOCK and how it runs at all because you have an easier time thinking it's gonna affect TIME????

The idea here is to learn to recognize BS when you see it...

The majority, Gung, are on my side

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=relativity+proved

I will have to admit however that new discoveries in simultaneity to say nothing of the the Twin Paradox do shade a spot of doubt; even Einstein was a bit puzzled by the latter

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=twin+paradox+recent+simultaneity

So do entertain my 'relative relativity,' which easily explains it all. While I hafta admit it sounds crazy as hell, nobody here at a2k has been able to counter it

recognize BS when you see it...

One form of BS yet to be seriously considered by the Scientific Community most easily explains the slowing clock as well as the Twin Paradox

http://able2know.org/topic/306767-1

There are by now probably tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of experimental results confirming the two theories of Relativity. If the FTL quantum entanglement thing ultimately pans out, at most it would be some kind of exception. For matter in motion, the Relativity theories have been confirmed over and over again for a century. The as yet undiscovered completely correct theory combining Relativity and quantum mechanics would reduce to today's Relativity or quantum theory under the conditions in which each applies, just as relativity theory transforms into Newtonian mechanics for low speeds and intermediate size masses.

True Bran; though even now some argue about the Twin Paradox

Yep Bran that's mine

http://able2know.org/topic/306839-1

Among actual physicists, virtually no one.

Quantum entanglement disproves Relativity? Only if you have some rigid assumptions. But by the time you've accepted quantum entanglement as a fact, your assumptions are probably pretty flexible... too flexible to stand up to the weight of experimental evidence of Relativity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

Bran, some say that's becsuse they're embarrassed

Do you mean people who have never taken a physics class? Special relativity has been verified over and over and over again all over the world for more than a century and there is essentially no disagreement within the physics world. People with no education in the subject can babble on about it as much as they like.

I concur that's the presumption. And while a2k is hardly The Colloquium of Physics, I do remember a couple of threads in which participants had quoted sources suggesting slight uncertainties

Help me, one of you other participants in that desisive discussion

...forgiving the alliteration; my subconscious evidently supposes such as side-splitting hilarious

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Einstein+questions+twin+paradox&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1