Why is the theory of relativity only a theory and can it be proven?

Answer 1

Theory of RelativityThere is no set definition for the difference between laws, and theories in science. For instance Murphys law. (Anything that can happen will happen.) To be a little more meaningful, Murphy was trying to say that wide is the road to mistakes and errors and narrow is the gate to perfection. In other words, it is easier to do things wrong than to do them right. This is no law. While it does not appear to be a natural law, it is a mandate from the power of perfection: if you do things right, the result will be right; if you do them wrong, the result will be wrong. Science only proves things true by not being able to prove them wrong. AnswerAs the above indicates, relativity can't really be definitively proven. But it can and has been tested. So far it has passed every test. The theory predicted that light coming from distant stars would bend as it passes by the sun. This was verified during a solar eclipse.

There are several sub-atomic particles that exist for only a very tiny fraction of a second. When these particles are observed in accelerators, their lives are increased exactly as the theory predicts.

There is a fundamental problem when attempting to bring relativity and quantum theory into harmony. Many scientists believe that although relativity is yielding much opportunity for useful research, ultimately it will be found to have a flaw, and quantum theory will remain intact. Maybe you will take part in a scientific breakthrough that will solve this puzzle!

Relativity is a rather flawed theory which has served a purpose but now needs radical refinement to bring it into line with quantum theory. For instance relativity attempts to combine Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic radiation and combine it with newton's theory of gravity to produce the first steps towards a unified theory of everything. Unfortunately Einstein decided that he did not like Maxwell's idea of ether as a medium capable of propagation of energy to cause action at a distance (point A influencing point B at a distance) but kept Maxwell's laws. This is really rather misguiding. Einstein would have been better to try to redefine Maxwell's equations to suit his model rather than disregarding something that he did not believe in.

Of course action at a distance is not the same thing as curved space time as Einstein claimed. It is plain to see that light is not action at a distance, it is action from a distance. However, the question still remains: why do planets stay within the orbit of the sun and why moons stay within the orbit of the planets? Could there be another type of force that keeps planets with their orbit? The proposed answers to these type of questions I do believe become theories.

there are also flaws steaming from recent research that suggests the speed of light in a vacuum may not be a viable measure for any scientific theory.

(but these theory's are based off of relativity untested results, when compared to relitivity)