We constantly say that Einstein’s General and Special theories of relativity have passed many different tests, insenuating their accuracy.
Before Einsten, we tested Isaac Newton’s theories, which also passed with accuracy until Einstein came along.
What’s to say another Einstein/Newton comes along 200-300 years from now to dispute Einstein’s theories?
Is that even possible or are his theories grounded in certainty at this point?
In: 593
There’s an essay from Isaac Asimov that is relevant here called [“The Relativity of Wrong”](https://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html). It notes the fact that the earth is *not* actually a sphere; it’s an oblate spheroid. However, the difference between a sphere and an oblate spheroid is so slight compared to the difference between a flat circle and a sphere that it would be even *more* wrong to claim that both the flat earth model and the spherical earth model are “wrong”, as though wrongness is simply a binary and something that is *mostly* right is just as wrong as something that is *completely* wrong.
Newton wasn’t “wrong”; his models were simply *incomplete*. If you’re dealing with non-relativistic speeds and constant masses, Newton’s laws are still perfectly applicable. It’s only when you get relativistic speeds, or cases like rocketry where mass is changing with respect to time, that you need more specific equations that account for those edge cases.
It’s possible that someday in the future, someone will create an even more specific set of equations that account for both Einstein’s equations and further edge cases that we haven’t yet even discovered. But when that happens, that won’t *overturn* Einstein’s work; it will just *further refine* his work.
Latest Answers