Dear Comrade/Peers,
As per basics of theory of relativity, in this world, there is nothing absolute. Everything is relative, either qualitative or quantitative measure, aspect, approach etc. So, there is nothing absolute or rigid? Is there any other hypothesis against this theory of relativity?
Expecting you laudable opinion.
-Aniruddha Sarker
> So, there is nothing absolute or rigid?
For every measurement you need to define what you mean by "zero", e.g., zero velocity. Because there seems no way of doing that universally - not even within the confines of classical mechanics - so we have to confront some kind of relativity.
There is one nice exception here. With in special relativity we have the notion of proper acceleration and the magnitude of this is a Lorentz invariant.
However, once you start of thing about accelerated frame, such as in general relativity, things become more complicated.
But in short, basic measurements are always relative to something.
> Is there any other hypothesis against this theory of relativity?
You mean Einsteinian relativity?
Sure people make up hypothesis here, but there is no evidence that special and general relativity are not good theories, i.e., they match what we see very well.
However, people are interested in the possibility of small violations of Einsteinian relativity that could come from quantum gravity. The usual thing is to explore theories with small violations of Lorentz invariance. But again, I will say that nothing like this has been seem in experiments.
It depends from observer.
The SR is a theory that looks at the system of objects from the positions of the observer inside the system. As result one gets very complicated picture which is far from reality. Real picture one can get by look from outside.
For example: We see the Sunrise and Sunset. According Moon we see the same. Therefore Earth is in the centre, but Sun and Moon is moving around the Earth. It is the view of Ptolemy. The observer on the Moon see that Earth and Sun goes around the Moon. Copernicus looked (theoretically) at the Solar system from the outside and gained much simpler and more correct explanation of the observations. Nowadays it is confirmed by direct observations from spacecraft.
SR setting that there are two reference (Earth, Moon) frames here is not useful.
The GR probably is inconsistent. The basic statements (gravity, mass, space) are disputable.
Ilgaitis Prusis
>The GR probably is inconsistent.
What do you mean by this?
Description of gravity as a geometric property of Space and Time: the curvature of Spacetime. I have another opinion, which will be published soon. Be patient.
> I have another opinion, which will be published soon.
The problem is that general relativity has passed every test made of it and to some stupidly high degree of accuracy. This is somewhat annoying as we know that general relativity cannot be the final word on gravity. Some clues from nature as to what replace it would be nice!
Anyway, you will have to make sure that any new theory of gravity can reproduce the agreement with nature that general relativity has. Good luck.
Thank you dear Contributor Andrew James Bruce , Ilgaitis Prusis , Sydney Ernest Grimm
for your kind opinion and discussion in this regard. I think this will help me to explore this disguise about relativity.
To Andrew James Bruce
It is answer to your question about GR inconsistency. Please check: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329842506_New_Conception_of_Space_Curvature
and: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330142806_New_Concept_of_Mass
Best regards
Ilgaitis
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude