Einstein wins out again, extreme test:

http://www.space.com/20826-einstein-gravity-theory-toughest-test.html

It doesn't get much more extreme than this outside of black holes.

Originally posted by sonhouse

http://www.space.com/20826-einstein-gravity-theory-toughest-test.html

It doesn't get much more extreme than this outside of black holes.

Incredible! Does this "Extreme Test" move "The Theory of Relativity" from 'Theory' to Principle or Law or Level
of An Absolute Truth [or must more batteries of Empirical Tests and/or Laboratory Trials be performed first]?

"An extreme pair of superdense stars orbiting each other has put Einstein's general theory of relativity to its toughest test yet, and the crazy-haired physicist still comes out on top. About 7,000 light-years from Earth, an exceptionally massive neutron star that spins around 25 times a second is orbited by a compact, white dwarf star. The gravity of this system is so intense that it offers an unprecedented testing ground for theories of gravity.

"Scientists know general relativity, proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915, isn't the complete story. While it does very well describing large, massive systems, it's incompatible with quantum mechanics, which governs the physics of the very small. For something extremely small, yet extremely massive — such as a black hole — the two theories contradict each other, and scientists are left without a physical description." (www.space.com)
.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Incredible! Does this "Extreme Test" move "The Theory of Relativity" from 'Theory' to Principle or Law or Level
of An Absolute Truth [or must more batteries of Empirical Tests and/or Laboratory Trials be performed first]?

"An extreme pair of superdense stars orbiting each other has put Einstein's general theory of relativity to its toughest test ye ...[text shortened]... h other, and scientists are left without a physical description." (www.space.com)
.

Laws are old hat. The various laws were proposed by overly confident people like Newton who thought they had found absolute truth. Nowadays a theory stays a theory until replaced with a new one.

Originally posted by Kepler

Laws are old hat. The various laws were proposed by overly confident people like Newton who thought they had found absolute truth. Nowadays a theory stays a theory until replaced with a new one.

Do you think this one will follow suit?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Do you think this one will follow suit?

Usually a new theory just refines an old one.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Usually a new theory just refines an old one.

Any new theory will have to be backwards compatible, that is, jiving with Newtonian physics as well as Einstein's physics. It will have to rightly explain phenomena that neither Isaac or Big Al can explain AND make predictions on other new phenomena that pan out or IT will fall by the wayside.

Originally posted by Kepler
Laws are old hat. The various laws were proposed by overly confident people like Newton who thought they had found absolute truth. Nowadays a theory stays a theory until replaced with a new one.

I thought a 'law' was a simple equation or the equivalent in words whereas a theory was longer and more descriptive. We still learn Newtons Laws even though we know they are not entirely accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

Originally posted by twhitehead
I thought a 'law' was a simple equation or the equivalent in words whereas a theory was longer and more descriptive. We still learn Newtons Laws even though we know they are not entirely accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

That's one way of looking at it but none of the more modern equations are accorded the status of a law and not all laws are equations. The Schrodinger wave equation from quantum mechanics is not a law for example. Also, some of Newton's laws of mechanics are not simple equations, the bit about equal and opposite forces for example. Likewise Kepler's laws are not all equations, only the third one that deals with the relationship between orbital period and size of orbit is expressed in anything like an equation in Kepler's work.

Not being entirely accurate doesn't render Newton's laws useless. They are good enough to get a space probe to Neptune for example, something you couldn't do very well with relativity.

Originally posted by Kepler
That's one way of looking at it but none of the more modern equations are accorded the status of a law and not all laws are equations. The Schrodinger wave equation from quantum mechanics is not a law for example. Also, some of Newton's laws of mechanics are not simple equations, the bit about equal and opposite forces for example. Likewise Kepler's laws are ...[text shortened]... space probe to Neptune for example, something you couldn't do very well with relativity.

So you are saying Newton's physics is more accurate in the close in world of the Solar system than Big Al's?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you are saying Newton's physics is more accurate in the close in world of the Solar system than Big Al's?

Not more accurate but more practical. It is much easier to solve the equations of motion in Newqton's gravitational system than Einstein's.

Originally posted by Kepler
Not more accurate but more practical. It is much easier to solve the equations of motion in Newqton's gravitational system than Einstein's.

I'll give you that! Going through the velocity equations and the variable time thing. Figuring out more or less where you are is a bear, and the equations are loaded into every GPS so I am happy for that box to do all the heavy lifting🙂