Is there any way of disproving General Theory Of Relativity?
363660
There are many ways of disproving Relativity.  All you'd need to do is test one of General Relativity's many predictions and find a result that was contrary to what the theory predicts.  For instance, the next solar eclipse, you could look at the stars near the sun and see whether or not their light had been bent by the presence of the sun's mass.  Or, you could show that GPS systems do not work, since the GPS satelites rely on general relativistic equations to keep them synchronized.  Or, you could fly an atomic clock around the world and show that time does not move more slowly for objects in fast motion than it does for a clock on the ground.  The problem with disproving General Relativity is that the theory has been tested millions of times over the last century, and no one has found it to be wrong yet.  Not once.\n\nWhat you might be able to do, though, is find a theory that is more fundamental than relativity for explaining the happenings of the universe.  There are questions about the universe that General Relativity has no answers for, just as there are questions that Quantum Mechanics cannot answer.  If you discovered a unified theory that could explain general reletivity, quantum mechanics, string theory, and all the gaps inbetween, then that would replace relativity as the fundamental theory of the universe.  However, any theory that you came up with would still have to be consistent with the experimental results from general relativity, just like general relativity is consistant with the Newton's Laws that it replaced.
950911
At least at current technology level this is impossible (to my knowledge). I'm a physicist from Finland, and I was a bit amazed when I read this question; I had never heard that scientists in Finland have claimed to have made an anti-gravity drive. So I took a quick look what Internet has to say about it (after I couldn't find an article from J Phys D, where this should have been published according to some Internet sources). This sure smells like a hoax; the paper was withdrawn, and every Finnish scientist mentioned in conjunction with this case has denied their participation; in fact nobody seems to know what this is all about. Only guy who has said anything is this one Russian guy (Dr Eugene Podkletnov), and in the end he was the one requesting the withdrawal of the paper. A whole description of the aftermath of this Sunday Telegraph article (where this was discussed) can be found from http://www.enterprisemission.com/antigrav.html (the end part, first is the article itself).\n\nSo, there's a lot of BS going on in this anti-gravity / inertialess drive field. There may be something in maybe 1% of those "studies", but I wouldn't take too seriously anything I read from the web about these things... When something happens, the scientific community will start buzzing. At least I will notice it (I have to follow journals and media about these things because of my work); there's some movement every time a new hoax appears, but that movement stops at the point where other labs try to repeat the experiment. If something new comes up, it will be heard in every media, not only in Internet.\n\nHowever, to answer your actual question, "Is it possible to create an anti-gravity drive that could be used for space propulsion?", I would say that one day it could be possible. There's research going on, and even though some people think it would contradict Einsteins general theory of relativity, I still think it could be possible.\n\nAbout alien spaceships... eh... well, I would doubt their existence. An extraterrestrial intelligence would surely show up first to all hillbillies and mutilate their cows for research? Or play around and show spectacular light shows flying around just for fun? Of course that's not impossible, but I would see it highly unlikely...\n\nDuring my quick look, I found one nice, interesting old article of wired.com: http://www.wired.com/wired/6.03/antigravity_pr.html . I think I'll read that one through...
1058278
A Grand Unified Theory of Everything cannot be explained in such fashion. I would recommend reading "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku.
690650
Some of Einstein's Ideas are already being rewritten. So, quoting him as an end-all to the question of anti-gravity really doesn't mean a whole lot. Newton's laws were rewritten after his time, as science learned more about itself. It's not unreasonable to assume that the same will occur in reguards to this taboo topic too. I remember seeing a video of a man who has come close, with a spinning top device. By itself, it weighs far too much to lift by hand. But, once it is set spinning, it could be lifted by a child. :)\n\nCurrent science is not an absolute. :) Don't give up hope!
1147506
As long as it was theory and not fact- there would be someone to dispute it.  So, no. Unfortunately.  \n\nBut it would be worth trying for, anyways.
546164
Yes.  The laws of relativity have been shown to be true at various speeds.  At slow speeds the effect is very, very tiny, so it is very hard to measure, but every bit of evidence we have says that relativity is true for all speeds (and for being stationary, for that matter).\n\nWhy is it hard to measure?  Well, say you're in a small (2 meter) automobile going 100 km/hr.  The contraction due to relativistic effects would be about .2 micron, or 200 nanometers.  To see a contraction of just two cm - just under an inch - you would have to get the car up to 95 million miles an hour!  \n\nTime, momentum, mass, etc are likewise.  They are affected relativistically, but the effect is so very small that for all practical purposes it is zero.  \n\nBut maybe you have an impractical purpose??  :-)
380806
Well, there are believed to be a class of unverified particles that surpass the speed of light called Tachyons.  If they move toward the object that created it then perhaps it could be true.  That's about the only way I could think to prove it since actually getting any object of study to surpass the speed of light would likely cause the big collapse and pull the entire universe on to one spot right were the object reached that speed and gain infinite mass as Einstein also theorized.\n\nOn the other hand, claiming anything as entirely impossible is foolish.  Science lives in absolutes and when thy get proven wrong, there always tons of frumpy old men in lab coats ready to restate that it was a theory though they called it a fact the day before.
214436
try these links\nthts a really good question but its explainations is quite lengthy. so maybe if u go through all these links, u might get wat u really are looking for\n\nwww.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/txt/al.html\n\nwww.bartleby.com/173/\n\nwww-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/ ~history/HistTopics/General_relativity.html \n\nen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity\n\nwww2.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/GenRelativity.html\n\ngood luck and have fun!
42478
I think you have the wrong idea.  The reconciliation between the theory of relativity and Newtonian physics is intrinsic to relativity itself.  When you consider the theory of relativity in the limit of small magnitude velocities, you recover classical mechanics.\n\nI think you mean to ask whether there has been a theory combining the standard model of particle physics with the general theory of relativity in a manner that predicts both, and the answer is no.
253430
Well if gravity is what Einstein said it is=Curvature of space time.\nThan you are going to find some space time and uncurve it!\nThis would be anti-Gravity.
987443
do an experiment, the experiment always governs theory ..no matter how good is a theory a single experiment can disprove it, or you can rise a whole theory by analizing one experiment and relating it to others to explain it....or you can change your name to Einstein or Planck and pretend you have done it! , that's faster :P
943807
The product of space and time is not so much an abstraction as much as an aberrated perception. ( Why, In GR theory, is everyone always going deductively DOWNWARDS into the collapse rather than inductively tracking the event back to original precipitating events?  The answers are THERE.)
238837
Decades ago the mathematician and physicist Stephen Hawkins set out to disprove the great myth of the Black Hole. In his attempt to disprove the theory of the Black Hole he instead ended up proving there existence through mathematical model. When we think of a telescope, we instinctively think of an optical telescope. Today we have radio scopes, X-Ray scopes, gamma ray scopes and the list goes on. I do not know of a single image of a real live Black Hole that has been taken. What they look for is the perbutations that surround a Black Hole based on mathematical model. I hope this helps.
58372
the formula you need is Fg=Gm1m2/r^2.  so just plug in. G is the universal gravitational constant. so it's:\n(6.673 x 10^-11)(70)(70)/(1)^2 = 3.327 x 10^-7 N\n\nas you can see, this is negligable because people are not big enough to create a substancial gravitational force.
86722
I don't know about disproving it, but this website has a link to another person's website that may help you, if you look hard and long enough!\nhttp://www.coasttocoastam.com
202172
It hasn't been observed, if that's what you mean by proven, but it is a widely accepted idea because the theoretical underpinnings are very solid.  I don't think anyone contests the idea much these days.  If we're lucky, when the LHC at CERN comes on line in late 2007, we may be able to make microsingularities and watch them evaporate, giving direct proof of Hawking radiation.
1160647
Neither,\n\nTheory is never proof so that's not it. Gravity is a weak force. M is an explanation why it is weak. Multidimensional theory is not about gravity, it's just part of it.\n\nEinstein tried to unify the fields, he failed. Many new theories came and went.... I'm not sure we 'got it' now. It is still a very unstable work in progress.