What is true in Einstein's theory of relativity?

Question

I LOVE Science and I heard so much about E=mc2 and Einstein's work, those that advocate his ideas but as I have gone furtherer in this level of existence I come to the REALIZATION that he is wrong: 1.) a small amount of matter can't be converted to a big amount of energy because of time. 2.) If "Cool Fusion" is possible then Einstein's is NOT. 3.) Think about cycles--TIME--1

Answer 1

When they have a working prototype, scientists will be able to convert Einstein's theories into proofs.

Answer 2

No theory in physics is perfect! This why physicists are always searching for a better theories. Such an evolution of theoretical development is fuelled by discoveries and theoretical advances, which 'quantum jump' to or smooth the way to the next step in 'physic's' progress towards a better description of the natural physical world.



Perhaps here I should discuss some of Einstein's, still very valid, contributions to physics theory.



Einstein's theory of General Relativity (1915) is in fact a cause and effect theory. The theory describes the fabric of space-time as a medium that may be distorted by the presence of mass and energy. In an earlier theory (The Special Theory of Relativity (1905)), Einstein had related mass and energy in the famous equation: -



E = mc²



From this concept, he described the curvature or distortion of space-time as due to the total sum of mass-energy present within the region of distorted space. It is the curvature of space-time we call gravity. Thus, our planet follows the 'straightest' path or path of least action whilst it orbits the mutually curved space around the Sun. An object falling to earth, under the pull of gravity, is following the curvature of space in the region around the surface of the Earth. Einstein described the relationship between space-time curvature and the mass-energy causing it, in the tensor field equation: -



G = 8πT



Where 'G' is the Einstein tensor representing the 'gravity' or curvature of space-time and 'T' is the total energy tensor representing the mass-energy creating the gravitational curvature of the space-time.



The theory, accurately predicts many features of the solar system, such as the peculiar motion of Mercury’s perihelion, and may be used to account for the gravitational physics of black holes and neutron stars. The extreme high pressure physics at the core of a star may be described using this theory. General relativity also predicted the Big Bang origin of the universe, although Einstein refused to accept the conclusion. He later claimed that this erroneous conclusion was his biggest blunder. Overall, after ninety-three years, General Relativity is still the best theory of gravity that we have!

Answer 3

1) A counter-example is a nuclear bomb.

When you add up the mass of the uranium you started with, and subtract the by-products (cesium-60, and some other element), you wind up with some missing mass.

The difference is the energy released.

Only 1kg of uranium was used, and only about 3% of it was converted into energy.



2) I don't follow the logic here: How does cold fusion disprove Einstein's theory?

Answer 4

Cold fusion is not possible. Everything about the theory is correct except, in my opinion, time dilation, I believe that it is motion of particles that slows at near light speed. Time is a man made concept, he needed it to able to calculate speed and distance of motion. The Earth is a mere speck in the cosmos. Why does it need time zones? Think about it.

Answer 5

You haven't made your objections very clear. The fact that small amounts of matter can be converted to big amounts of energy has been proved thousands of times on earth in the form of atomic bombs and nuclear reactors. You also see evidence of it every day in the form of sunlight.

Answer 6

There's no question in any of that anywhere! You've just stated a few groundless opinions totally unvalidated by any research and / or observations. There's an immense body of scientific validation that totally obscures your statements.

Answer 7

There is no "truth" in physics...

only "facts."



In the case of proved facts, you would be talking about scientific LAWS --

rather than scientific THEORIES.



For "truth" you need to study philosophy!



BTW: "Realization" is not a scientific process.

It also belongs in the discipline of philosophy.

Answer 8

I do not understand any of your objections. If you have a point, you should make it. As it is, you have said nothing that anyone else can understand and agree with.