Changes

::It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure. [http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm]

::It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure. [http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm]

Furthermore, the prediction that light would be influenced by gravity at all was profound in it's own right.

The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.

Like other scientific theories, relativity progressed gradually from the status of a "wild surmise," to a theory backed by imperfect experiments whose validity was debated, to a theory whose truth is now almost taken for granted. No particle accelerator built since the 1950s would work unless the mass increase predicted by special relativity not only occurred, but occurred to the precise degree predicted by the theory. In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and were directly able to observe the relativistic "twin paradox;" the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy.<ref>as described in [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?], a personal web page, which cites Haefele and Keating (1972), ''Science'' Vol. 177 pp 166-170 as its source</ref><ref>Sullivan, Walter (1972), "Relativity Theory Awaits Affirmation",  September 23, 1972, p. 61. Note: Article refers to a different experiment, which Sullivan discusses, saying that if successful it would be "the second time within a year" that relativity had been confirmed, then proceeds to discuss Hafele[sic] and Keating's experiment as the first.</ref>

==Evidence for Relativity==

 

No particle accelerator built since the 1950s would work unless the mass increase predicted by special relativity not only occurred, but occurred to the precise degree predicted by the theory.{{fact}} In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and were directly able to observe the relativistic "twin paradox" the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy.<ref>as described in [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?], a personal web page, which cites Haefele and Keating (1972), ''Science'' Vol. 177 pp 166-170 as its source</ref><ref>Sullivan, Walter (1972), "Relativity Theory Awaits Affirmation",  September 23, 1972, p. 61. Note: Article refers to a different experiment, which Sullivan discusses, saying that if successful it would be "the second time within a year" that relativity had been confirmed, then proceeds to discuss Hafele[sic] and Keating's experiment as the first.</ref>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Today some physicists are working on a [[quantum theory of gravity]] (the "theory of everything"), such as [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]].  Critics increasingly point out that [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]] are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by [[Karl Popper]].

Today some physicists are working on a [[quantum theory of gravity]] (the "theory of everything"), such as [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]].  Critics increasingly point out that [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]] are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by [[Karl Popper]].

== References ==

== References ==