Is the Special theory of Relativity wrong?

[narrowbandpaul]

part timer,

I am glad you dont mind people having a go with string theory. I am sure they are glad they have your backing

inflation works, like it or not. It explains a whole load of other phenomenon, ie horizon and flatness issues.

i share your views with what makes charges attract or repel one another. I have pondered this for a few years now.

in no way should physics be concerned only with whats useful. Its the science of understanding and we should always look towards a more correct truth

paul

[SC-Pulsar]

I totally agree with you Paul, if the ancients had shared the view of physics only being concerned with what's useful, science as we know it would not be as it is today.

I'm pretty sure most discoveries weren't made on the basis of the outcome having some use... it was the curiosity that drove these scientists to experiment and ponder the wonders of the universe - the sheer thrill and excitement of finding out how it all works!

I believe the late Richard Feynman put it perfectly -

To get an idea of understanding nature, imagine the gods are playing some great game like chess, you don't know the rules of the game, but ... from time to time you can look at the board, and from these observations... try to figure out what the rules of the game are.

Stacey

[Macavity]

Heheh. I think too I would put in a good word for my brother/sister theoretical (particle) physicists.

Of course, they are human - most of them anyway! And their work is also human endeavour. As with any employ, there will be charlatans, lazy beggars, and folks motivated to study rather pointless, populist and "band wagon" (funding and promotional incentive?) subjects.

But, on the WHOLE, I was impressed by my sojourn in the field. I add quickly that I was a detector developer - a "hardware guy". Indeed, after a hard day of climbing ladders and freezing to death on some... "foreign field", I didn't always feel favourably disposed to those in a warm office and a ready supply of chalk and coffee. But...

In my experience, the pathological cases seem MUCH in the minority. In the main (and despite public perception) I reckon most scientists DO work hard. Many early SUSY physicists were hardware guys (and gals too!) during the day, and did unpaid theoretical work in their evenings and "spare" time... I suspect it is still much the same?

I lament (my perception) that increasingly academia need have an immediate purpose. The cost of everything and the value of nothing? I suspect most in these fields strive for "truth" and a best theoretical explanation for experimental results. In an (admitted, but inevitable?) dearth of the LATTER, I still hope they continue in their quest.

[Astro_Baby]

I wouldn't have the slightest idea of GR is wrong. How would I know ? I only have other peoples word that it was ever right.

The older I get the more sure I am that 'The Hokey Cokey' really IS what its all about.

[haitch]

I don't have the knowledge to prove or disprove the guy but when he starts getting published in reputable scientific journals rather than him having to build his own web page to promote his theory I'll start to pay attention.

As for whether if is wrong or right, I won't vote but this guy has done nothing to sway me one way or the other.

[Macavity]

How would I know?

I think that's the "thing"? And in that, you, I, and I suspect most of humanity, must occupy the same position? (Average) Ph.D. physicists included, it is still quite a special person among them who can originate theories, who can negate existing stuff, in any real sense? Such is usually accompanied by several DENSE pages of mathematics, of "calculus" etc. - Perhaps the challenge one might issue to any internet savant is: "Can you show me the maths".

And to this last, I suspect I can reply, with some confidence... NO!

[Rosanella]

...and what do you make of this ?

left-click (once) there ---> What's Wrong With E=MC^2?

[part timer]

Paul

You are right that Science is about truth. The truth however can be harder to recognize than is commonly believed!

This is where that old friend 'usefulness' comes in handy. Lets face it, neither Bohr nor Einstein could bring themselves to really believe their own work (and that of all the other greats) on QM. It just seemed unphysical to them.

However, I'm using many of those principles to send you this message, so we can judge beyond doubt that there is at least some truth in them!

Particle Physics can be similarly 'justified' as many parts of the theory can be tested now in accelerators by experiment. This is not possible in cosmology. Observations can be made, but are strongly open to interpretation and importantly, can never be repeated in the same way.

We are never completely sure what we are looking at in astronomical observations, particually at the larger redshifts (a lot of things can make a difference at such distances) and it is thus very dangerous (for the truth) to draw the kinds of firm conclusions which seem to be thought nessecary these days.

So the problem with inflation is that it only fits obsevations due to that wonderful technique known as 'fine tuning'. There is of course absolutley no way of this being checked (unless we pop back to the start of the universe!) and so it is impossible to distingiush a clever but flawed theory from a correct one. The most telling evidence to support a distrust of inflation is to sit and wait through your career in Physics and see how much 'further tuning' is required.