You seem to be rather confused about a number of things here. Let me see if
I can set you straight (assuming you will read this with an open mind,
naturally, and not simply continue to assume that I am talking through my
hat).
We know that Einstein did not prove any physical law wrong, because if
anything he asserted the validity of all known laws at a time when
physicists were beginning to doubt it. As he explains in his book
_Relativity_, a poweful concept in classical mechanics is the principle of
relativity, which in essence is that the physical laws must be the same in
any frame of reference. (There are of course limitations on the kinds of
reference frames permissible, but these are not germaine to the discussion.)
At the same time, the constancy of the speed of light (known as the law of
propogation of light) was considered to be a proven fact. The problem was
that according to classical physics the speed of the propogation of light in
a moving frame of reference should be lower than the speed of the
propogation of light in a stationary frame of reference. However, this
would contradict the principle of relativity. Since the law of propogation
of light was considered a proven fact, physicists at that time were more
willing to abandon the principle of relativity. But then that would also
mean abandoning the idea that the physical laws were the same in all frames
of reference, which would open up the same can of worms as finding out that
the law of conservation of momentum has exceptions.
Einstein solved the problem in a radical new way. He began by asserting
that the law of propogation of light -- and by extension any physical law --
was the same in any frame of reference. This became the first of the two
postulates he would use as a basis for the theory of relativity. Then he
asserted that there was no such thing as an instantaneous interaction. This
was an inference based on the work of Maxwell and Hertz, both of whom showed
that any electromagnetic interaction could only take place at a certain
maximum speed. If then there were no instantaneous interactions at all,
then there must also be a maximum speed of interaction. Einstein asserted
that this maximum speed of interaction was the speed of electromagnetic
interaction; that is, the speed of light. Using the principle of
relativity, Einstein further asserted that the maximum speed of interaction
must be the same for any frame of reference. As such he concluded that the
speed of light must be a universal constant. This became his second
postulate.
So we can see that so far, the basis of the theory of relativity is based,
not on the assumption that any physical law is false, but on the assumptions
that not only are they all true, they are true for all frames of reference.
However, Einstein's two postulates, when combined with the principle of
relativity, created a paradox that could not be resolved by classical
physics. At that time, classical physics was based on the assumptions that
time, space and mass were absolute and that the speed of interactions was
relative (hence classical physics allowed for the possibility of
instantaneous interactions). Instead Einstein used the relativity of
simultaneity (simultaneous events in one frame of reference are not
necessarily simultaneous when viewed from a different frame of reference) to
argue that in fact space, time and mass were relative and the speed of
interaction was absolute. He was taking his cue from Mach, who stated that
**physical** theories should be devoid of **metaphysical** constructs. Mach
considered absolute time and space to be pure mental constructs that could
not be reproduced by experience. Einstein agreed, and so replaced what he
considered to be the metaphysical absolutes of time and space with a
material absolute, the maximum speed of interaction.
All that remained was to work out the mathematics. This is where the
refinement of certain known laws comes in. Not in the laws themselves, but
in our abstract mathematical description of them. If the laws are real, if
we can prove them to be true, then they act the same under any set of
circumstances. But if we are not aware of what the full range of those
circumstances could be, if in fact we are mistaken as to what the very
nature of those circumstances are, then our abstract, mathematical
description of those laws may be flawed. The refining I referred to has
nothing to do with proving or disproving an accepted law; it has to do with
improving our description of that law.
An example of such an improvement concerns Newton's second law of motion.
The first law states that if a body is not acted upon by an external force,
its momentum remains constant. Momentum is sympolized by "p" and is equal
in magnitude to the product of the body's mass and velocity; hence p=mv. A
mathematical description of this law would be p=mv=c (where "c" is a
constant, not the speed of light). This law is also called the law of
inertia, inertia being a fundamental property of matter that resists change
in velocity and being equal in magnitude to the mass of a body. As such, in
the absence of an external force velocity remains constant, whether the
velocity is equal to zero (in which case the body is at rest within a
specific frame of reference) or the velocity is not equal to zero (in which
case the body is in motion within a specific frame of reference). This in
turn leads to the law of conservation of momentum, which is represented
mathematically as s(mv)b=s(mv)a, where the first term is the sum of all the
individual momentums before the collision and the second term is the sum of
all the individual momentums after the collision.
The second law, however, states that if an external force is applied to the
body, the rate of change of momentum is proportional to the force acting
upon the body. Since the force acts upon the body for a period of time, a
mathematical description of this law would be Ft=mv2-mv1, where F is force,
t is time, v1 is the initial velocity and v2 is the final velocity. The
simplest case involves a body that was at rest (v1=0), so the formula can be
simplified to Ft=mv. If we then solve for F we get F=m(v/t), where (v/t)
becomes the change in velocity. Another term for change in velocity is
acceleration ("a") so we can change the formula to F=ma, which is the most
familar mathematical representation of the second law of motion.
Einstein had no reason to doubt that these laws were true; what's more, he
used them in thought experiments to determine what affect speed would have
on a body. For example, since force is another word for interaction, and
since the maximum speed of interaction is the speed of light, he asked what
would happen if a body had a force applied to it that accelerated it up the
speed of light. Using the Lorentz transformation, Einstein was able to show
that as the body accelerated, time would slow down for it, so that from a
stationary frame of reference it would appear that the time over which the
force acted on the body got shorter. In other words, the force would have
less time to act on the body the closer it got to the speed of light, thus
the affect it would have would get less as well. In other words, if the
force remained unchanged, acceleration would decrease, until finally when
you reached the speed of light, acceleration would be zero.
If you rearrange the force formula we derived earlier, you would get that
a=F/m; as you can see it implies that there is no decrease in acceleration
as velocity inceases. Newton obtained this formula because he believed that
the nature of the set of circumstances over which it applied included
absolute time, absolute space, absolute mass and relative speed of
interaction. That's why Newton's second law of motion never predicted that
the rate of change of momentum would decrease as velocity increased.
Einstein didn't disprove this law, but he did show that the nature of the
set of circumstances over which it applied actually included relative time,
relative space, relative mass and absolute speed of interaction. As such,
he made it possible for Newton's second law of motion to predict that the
rate of change of momentum would decrease as velocity increased. His new
formula was a=F((1-(v^2/c^2))^1.5)/m; as you can see it implies that there
is a decrease in acceleration as velocity inceases. It also, however,
demonstrates that Newton had not been wrong, only limited in his scope. As
long as the ratio of v^2 to c^2 is so low as to be practially zero (which
would be true for any velocity under 10,000 km/sec), the F term remains
unchanged. In other words, for the kinds of velocities technology is
currently capable of producing, Newton's derived formula gives results that
are plenty accurate enough. It is only at higher velocities that it begins
to produce inaccurate results, and even then it's not until you reach the
very high velocities that the inaccuracy becomes significant. All Einstein
did was eliminate that inaccuracy.
So if you still believe that Einstein proved some known law to be false,
which was it, since it obviously wasn't Newton's laws of motion.
>
>There was, of course, a physical law of phlogiston at one
>time. The science that replaced it was somewhat more
>than a refinement.
>
Phlogiston was not a physical law, which is to say it was not an abstract,
mathematical model of a general principle of nature, like combustion. It
was a hypothetical **substance** said to be found only in combustable
materials, which revealed itself as flame when the material was burned. In
essence it was more like a theory, an attempt to explain how combustion
worked, rather than a simple, basic description in mathematical terms of
what combustion was. Besides, it was a purely philosophical concept that
was borrowed by science back when science was no better than a philosophical
discipline itself. There was never any physical evidence to support its
existence, and when people went looking for that evidence they found none.
For a concept to be a physical law it must be supported by evidence; after
all, virtually all physical laws were deduced from basic, simple
observations that anyone can do for themselves, and which students often
repeat in high school and college. You should know this; curious that you
do not.
>
>What you wrote, "But there has never, to my knowledge, been a case when a
>physical law was found to be false by new evidence," is still an absurdity.
>
And yet you still cannot or will not give even one example to prove me
wrong, or explain what physical law Einstein or any other scientist proved
wrong. Making bald assertions you either cannot or will not defend is the
height -- or should I say depth -- of absurdity.
Kevin L. O'Brien