Einstein's Relativity Is Wrong?

@humy said
Whether someone bothered to say it is irrelavent to the fact that its true. You make no point.

What is the difference between the stationary type of ether and the other types? Why is one type acceptable and the others are not? Be specific.

@metal-brain said
What is the difference between the stationary type of ether and the other types?

If you really are curious, which I don't believe you would be, look it up yourself and read it yourself. I will not babysit you.
I have already shown you a link that at least starts to explain some of the differences.

Why is one type acceptable and the others are not?

Some theorized types contradict relativity and, given relativity is a proven scientific fact, that means those types must be wrong. Some other theorized types do NOT contradict relativity and that means one of those other types MIGHT be but not necessarily is true.
There is currently no general scientific agreement on which is the correct one or whether in fact any are correct. The only thing we can rationally say for sure is that those that contradict relativity must be false but that doesn't rule out the others.

Got it now?

@humy said
If you really are curious, which I don't believe you would be, look it up yourself and read it yourself. I will not babysit you.
I have already shown you a link that at least starts to explain some of the differences.

Why is one type acceptable and the others are not?

Some theorized types contradict relativity and, given relativity is a proven scientific fac ...[text shortened]... those that contradict relativity must be false but that doesn't rule out the others.

Got it now?

Is that what was said after the Michelson–Morley experiment was done, that it did not disprove all aether theories? I don't recall that ever being said until after aether theory was rehashed by Einstein.
After the Michelson–Morley experiment all aethers were considered dead. There were no exceptions considered at the time. For many years the aether was rejected altogether because of Einstein. The very idea was shunned upon.

There are all sorts of names for aether that people deny is the aether. Was it sonhouse that posted a thread about a superfluid that fit the definition of an aether but he claimed it was not? What is the graviton? The smallest portion of the aether.

How many other silly names did people make up to describe the aether while denying it is another damn aether theory? If you cannot explain why one is valid while another is not it is probably because you are incapable of answering the question.

A luminiferous aether is required to propagate light. If Einstein really rejected a luminiferous aether what is waving? Your claim that Einstein's aether theory is not a luminiferous aether makes no sense. If he doesn't need an aether to wave why did he have a need for an aether at all?

You make no sense. You don't even know what a stationary aether is and why it makes a difference.

"The only thing we can rationally say for sure is that those that contradict relativity must be false but that doesn't rule out the others."

SR is a theory, not a fact. You cannot say that for sure. You have nothing more than faith in SR. It is another one of your religions. You don't have to be informed to have an opinion, but you do have to be informed to have an informed opinion. You don't have an informed opinion.

@metal-brain said
Is that what was said after the Michelson–Morley experiment was done,

Whether someone bothered to say it or whether anyone merely thought it is irrelavent to the fact that its true. You make no point.

SR is a theory, not a fact.

No, its a scientific fact;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
"...
Many experiments played (and still play) an important role in its development and justification. The strength of the theory lies in its unique ability to correctly predict to high precision the outcome of an extremely diverse range of experiments. Repeats of many of those experiments are still being conducted with steadily increased precision, with modern experiments focusing on effects such as at the Planck scale and in the neutrino sector. Their results are consistent with the predictions of special relativity.
..."

And now if you cross reference that with what a scientific fact is;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science
"...In science, a fact is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence. Facts are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts
..."

That means its a scientific fact.

Do you claim that SR is false? If no, you make no point. If yes, prove its false!

@humy said
Whether someone bothered to say it or whether anyone merely thought it is irrelavent to the fact that its true. You make no point.

SR is a theory, not a fact.

No, its a scientific fact;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
"...
Many experiments played (and still play) an important role in its development and justification. The strength ...[text shortened]... cientific fact.

Do you claim that SR is false? If no, you make no point. If yes, prove its false!

No, it is a theory just like Lorentz-invariant theories and you cannot prove Lorentz was wrong, so you cannot prove Einstein's SR was right. Besides, all he really did was prove Poincare and Lorentz were genius' since he ripped off his most important work from them.

Moreover, those tests have been disputed by some. You don't know for sure those tests were valid.

@metal-brain said
No, it is a theory just like Lorentz-invariant theories and you cannot prove Lorentz was wrong,

"wrong" about what?
Anyway, regardless of whether Lorentz was wrong about whatever, SR has been experimentally proven correct and if SR was wrong nuclear power stations would work and GPS would be incorrectly adjusted causing planes to crush into the ground via navigational error etc etc.

@humy said
"wrong" about what?
Anyway, regardless of whether Lorentz was wrong about whatever, SR has been experimentally proven correct and if SR was wrong nuclear power stations would work and GPS would be incorrectly adjusted causing planes to crush into the ground via navigational error etc etc.

My above misedit
"..if SR was wrong nuclear power stations would work..."
should be
"..if SR was wrong, nuclear power stations wouldn't work..."

@humy said
"wrong" about what?
Anyway, regardless of whether Lorentz was wrong about whatever, SR has been experimentally proven correct and if SR was wrong nuclear power stations would work and GPS would be incorrectly adjusted causing planes to crush into the ground via navigational error etc etc.

The GPS thing is a myth. GPS does not prove relativity correct.

@metal-brain said
The GPS thing is a myth.

Which part of GPS is "myth"?

GPS does not prove relativity correct.

Actually, it inadvertently does;
http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm
"...the orbiting clocks are 20,000 km above the Earth, and experience gravity that is four times weaker than that on the ground. Einstein's general relativity theory says that gravity curves space and time, resulting in a tendency for the orbiting clocks to tick slightly faster, by about 45 microseconds per day. The net result is that time on a GPS satellite clock advances faster than a clock on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day.
...
But at 38 microseconds per day, the relativistic offset in the rates of the satellite clocks is so large that, if left uncompensated, it would cause navigational errors that accumulate faster than 10 km per day! GPS accounts for relativity by electronically adjusting the rates of the satellite clocks, and by building mathematical corrections into the computer chips which solve for the user's location. Without the proper application of relativity, GPS would fail in its navigational functions within about 2 minutes.
...
So the next time your plane approaches an airport in bad weather, and you just happen to be wondering "what good is basic physics?", think about Einstein and the GPS tracker in the cockpit, helping the pilots guide you to a safe landing."

Is THAT above you are saying is "myth"? Joint the flat-Earth society.

@humy said
Which part of GPS is "myth"?

GPS does not prove relativity correct.

Actually, it inadvertently does;
http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm
"...the orbiting clocks are 20,000 km above the Earth, and experience gravity that is four times weaker than that on the ground. Einstein's general relativity theory says that gravity curves space and ti ...[text shortened]... ide you to a safe landing."

Is THAT above you are saying is "myth"? Joint the flat-Earth society.

https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/top-4-reasons-why-gps-doesnt-need-einstein-s-relativity-895cabc6e619

Just to clarify, I am not claiming Relativity is wrong, just that GPS does not prove it and the critics have their reasons.

http://alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm

@metal-brain said
Does Poincare deserve little credit? Lorentz?

Who deserves credit for the famous equation e=mc2? Isn't it Poincare? Why is Einstein deserving? He didn't come up with it. That was Poincare.

I've always thought "who deserves credit?" is more or less pointless. Obviously you cite their work, but famous scientists deserve less credit than they receive.

On the plus, celebrity draws people to science careers. Einstein's mystique is intoxicating. Many people think Watson/Crick discovered DNA. Instead they elaborated on its structure from many earlier obscure scientists. Did Copernicus discover heliocentrism? Did Newton discover gravity?

Much of cutting-edge science is a competitive race that drives investigators to similar conclusions.

@lemon-lime
Think about it. If you were able to live in a bubble in the exact center of Earth, what forces would act on your body? There would be a force pulling at you from all sides and thus cancelling out so you would be floating around as if you were a trillion miles out in space, near zero gravity. I say NEAR zero because you would still feel the pull of the sun and other planets but since you would be in orbit around the sun that too would be near zero so you would just float around in a near zero gravity field.

@Metal-Brain

Continuing in your contrarian ways. Who is next? Newton? Hawking? You must be having a field day sending out BS anti this and anti that crap when such things as SR has been shown in labs to be absolutely correct, if you go faster, your version of time goes slower. FACT jack.

@sonhouse said
@lemon-lime
Think about it. If you were able to live in a bubble in the exact center of Earth, what forces would act on your body? There would be a force pulling at you from all sides and thus cancelling out so you would be floating around as if you were a trillion miles out in space, near zero gravity. I say NEAR zero because you would still feel the pull of the sun and ot ...[text shortened]... und the sun that too would be near zero so you would just float around in a near zero gravity field.

Yeah. Realistically you couldn't safely be subject to the pressure of earths mass pushing on you, so that part of my question didn't make sense. I basically came up with the same answer as you... a planet with no molten core but with the same mass, and you in a bubble at the center of that mass.