Principle of relativity...could it be wrong?

The principle that as long as you cant detect anything outside and you are moving at a steady rate (ie not accelarating or deccelarating, or chaing direction) then nothing inside can tell you that you are or are not moving. Is there any chance that infact this is an incorrect assumption?
20:33 Mon 04th Apr 2011
 
Best Answer


No best answer has yet been selected by jezter. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.

1 to 5 of 5

no none whatsoever, on what do you base the potential supposition? Even if you can detect something outside it can be difficult ever sat on a train in the station and thought you were moving only to discover with a slight jolt that it was the train next to you moving, you only realise you are not moving when you see the station standing still after the train has moved off.
Relativity has been tested a thousand times in a thousand different ways and has always passed with flying colours.

If you have found a flaw in it, the next Nobel Prize in physics has your name on it!!
Ask yourself - can you feel the spinning of the Earth ?
can you feel the movement of the Earth as it orbits the Sun ?
Can you feel the fact that our whole galaxy is moving away from other galaxies ?
Can you feel how colossally fast all these movements are taking place ?
If all these stupendously fast movements are happening without you being aware of them, then other kinds of steady movements, without reference points , haven't a chance of being detected by the human brain or nervous system.
Of course it could be wrong, or more likely incomplete or not universally applicable. The basis of science is that someone observes something, comes up with a hypothesis to explain it and uses the hypothesis to make predictions that the scientific community then test. If every single test is passed, the scientific community may upgrade the hypothesis to a theory. That's where the Theory of Relativity is at the moment. No testable situation has been found where it doesn't predicict what is observed. However, no scientist worthy of the name would discount the possibility of such a situation existing.

All of this is the antithesis of the religious view, where the explanations are 'known' and the observations have to be manipulated to fit them.
Ah, reality just tells lies to those of its children that strive to understand it. When some have attained the ability to understand more then reality replaces it with another, better lie.

1 to 5 of 5

Latest posts