When Relativity is unraveled?

What do you mean by "unraveled"?

What do you mean by "unraveled"?
Inconsistencies, ambiguities,misconeptions and misinterpretations with repect to light, time,gravity and Lorentz transforms.

37 minutes and 42 seconds after it unravels (assuming there is an acceptable definition of unraveled by then) there will be pandemonium in the streets, and chaos will reign.

37 minutes and 42 seconds after it unravels (assuming there is an acceptable definition of unraveled by then) there will be pandemonium in the streets, and chaos will reign.
I hope it becomes less political, more concerned about reality instead of funding which trends toward deception.

Science should not be political at all. Findings are verified and reproduced by scientists in many countries.

Science should not be political at all. Findings are verified and reproduced by scientists in many countries.
That may be so, as a policy; but some discoveries suppressed by government s and global businesses.
e.g. NSA, NASA, Google, Microsoft,. )

Inconsistencies, ambiguities,misconeptions and misinterpretations with repect to light, time,gravity and Lorentz transforms.

You are talking about special relativity no doubt.

Have you considered the difference between the relativistic Doppler effect and the non-relativistic Doppler effect? In the case of both I don't think there would be a problem with the Lorentz transformations. But you would be better off asking a physicist who specializes in this area.

You are talking about special relativity no doubt.

Have you considered the difference between the relativistic Doppler effect and the non-relativistic Doppler effect? In the case of both I don't think there would be a problem with the Lorentz transformations. But you would be better off asking a physicist who specializes in this area.
They may be mathematically consistent; but the outcome is based on "what if (c) between inertial frames is constant in the ether". Einstein discounted the ether and replaced it with Minkoski spacetime in conjunction with Lorentz transforms so that time,mass and length varied so he could use of stress tensors of an elastic continuum defining gravity as a deformation of the continuum surrounding a mass. By defining gravity as a result of geomtry. Not the local medium to restore itself to equalibrium which will require a lower boundary-condition of the radius of the mass and negate the mathematical and romantic notion of a singularity, In general, Relativity implies "c" is constant for all observers which was the hypothesis for the transforms: circular logic.

Once man believes he has discovered the answers to his current questions, he will discover, he has only opened the door to a new reality with newer and more complex issues and questions.

One may find that there is no true constant, and that all matter and energy is in a state of movement and change previously unknown.

Or perhaps there will be a newer plane of existence, beyond time, where time or current belief in laws of nature, have no bearing

Once man believes he has discovered the answers to his current questions, he will discover, he has only opened the door to a new reality with newer and more complex issues and questions.

One may find that there is no true constant, and that all matter and energy is in a state of movement and change previously unknown.

Or perhaps there will be a newer plane of existence, beyond time, where time or current belief in laws of nature, have no bearing

Your last statement is probably closer to the tri\uth!

I hope it becomes less political, more concerned about reality instead of funding which trends toward deception.

I just noticed this post. I find this another interesting comment. You wouldn't be a YEC by any chance?

There are always new truths, the world is flat, the world is round, the earth is center of univerise, and so on. The more we learn, and every time we make a major jump forward, we tend to prove all the facts of the past wrong.

The more we learn, and every time we make a major jump forward, we tend to prove all the facts of the past wrong.

Not quite right. "Facts" by definition are not wrong - they are observations. Of course the observations may be wrong - for example due to mismeasurements - but if the measurement is correctly done then the fact is correct. What chages is man's attempt to explain the facts. These explanations are called "theories," and as man's ability to make finer and finer observations continues to improve what we find are new facts that go against the old theories. For example - the earth-centered universe theory did indeed fit all the facts as known to Aristotle, and even after Copernicus proposed the then-outrageous theory that the Earth is the center of the Solar System his model didn't fit the facts any better than the old helio-centric model did, as both relied on using circular orbits, and circles-within-circles, as the model for planetary behavior. Neither theory fit the observed motions of the planets terribly well. Consequently his theory sat in obscurity for some time. Then along came Kepler, who came up with a very neat and tidy model for movement of the planets in the night sky using elipses that fit the data much better than the older circle theories, and suddenly the helio-centric idea gained better footing. And when Galileo discovered the phases of Venus and the existence of moons around Jupiter suddenly these new facts made it very clear that Kepler was right, even though no one could explain why ellipses make sense for orbits. Finally Newton proposed his theory of gravity, and voilà we have a nice neat theory that explains the facts beautifully. So it's not that new facts wipe out old facts, but rather that new facts, in addition to the old facts, wipe out old theories and we replace them with new ones. Theories evolve, not facts. Indeed Newton's theory of gravity has had to be updated to include effects of relativity. I'm sure that in the future there will be refinements to that as well.

I just noticed this post. I find this another interesting comment. You wouldn't be a YEC by any chance?
No; but if it takes 14 GYR for light to reach us then the source had to be14 GLY at that time, how do we know that the light was not reflected 1 GYR ago or how many heavier mediums it traversed (delayed by slower speed) before it reached us? This raises the question of the age of the universe/

No; but if it takes 14 GYR for light to reach us then the source had to be14 GLY at that time, how do we know that the light was not reflected 1 GYR ago or how many heavier mediums it traversed (delayed by slower speed) before it reached us? This raises the question of the age of the universe/

It seems you have cause and effect reversed. We make an estimate of how far away a light source is by its relative brightness. From that distance estimate we then calculate how "old" the light is, not the other way around (we don't measure the age of the photons and from that deduce how far away the source is). This technique is dependent on some key assumptions:

(a) the laws of physics are everywhere (and everywhen) the same, so that the speed of light is constant throughout out the universe and the intrinsic brightness of stars - specifically a class of stars known as Cepheid Variables - is the same, and

(b) there is no intevening medium that darkens the light (making the source seem to be further away than they really are).

Scientists accept that the laws of physics are everywhere the same - including the speed of light - because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, and without that as a starting point you can't say anything about anything. And as for an intervening medium that slows light: such a medium would have distorting effects that would vary with wavelength (for example intervening dust and gas will typically strip out the wavelengths about equal the size of the atoms or molecules in the ntervening material), and we just don't see this happening in interstellar space between galaxies and nebulae. So given the lack of evidence to the contrary good old Hubble's constant seems to be working just fine.

It seems you have cause and effect reversed. We make an estimate of how far away a light source is by its relative brightness. From that distance estimate we then calculate how "old" the light is, not the other way around (we don't measure the age of the photons and from that deduce how far away the source is). This technique is dependent on some key assumptions:

(a) the laws of physics are everywhere (and everywhen) the same, so that the speed of light is constant throughout out the universe and the intrinsic brightness of stars - specifically a class of stars known as Cepheid Variables - is the same, and

(b) there is no intevening medium that darkens the light (making the source seem to be further away than they really are).

Scientists accept that the laws of physics are everywhere the same - including the speed of light - because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, and without that as a starting point you can't say anything about anything. And as for an intervening medium that slows light: such a medium would have distorting effects that would vary with wavelength (for example intervening dust and gas will typically strip out the wavelengths about equal the size of the atoms or molecules in the ntervening material), and we just don't see this happening in interstellar space between galaxies and nebulae. So given the lack of evidence to the contrary good old Hubble's constant seems to be working just fine.
So your saying the speed of light does not slow down in a dense mediun>

So your saying the speed of light does not slow down in a dense mediun>

That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that there is no evidence that the universe is permeated by a dense medium (at least it hasn't been since stars and galaxies began to form a few hundred million years after the Big Bang).

That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that there is no evidence that the universe is permeated by a dense medium (at least it hasn't been since stars and galaxies began to form a few hundred million years after the Big Bang).
Ok. How about if every when is now, no mass translation, no time, no sseparation of masses?