what I'm saying is that you should use Earth based equipment.
He's fully aware of what you're trying to say. However, that isn't how you do science. Also, relativity applies on earth just as much as it does in space, so you'd gain nothing from that little endeavor.
Therefore you eliminate the NECESSITY to use the theory of relativity.
Impossible. But somehow "eliminating" the use of the theory, you can no longer determine the validity of it. Not to mention that very idea is so ridiculous to even consider, because relativity sits in the very center of modern physics.
In fact, general relativity is
an extension of Newton's law of universal gravitation (the thing you said has been "
roven indefinitely"
and explains phenomena that Newton's law can't.
Relativistic effects have been observed and experimentally proven. For instance, without relativity,
a GPS would not work because GPS satellites are affected by time dilation. That is a fact. And it's also why relativity is considered a scientific theory to begin with.
"Just a theory" doesn't cut it, because scientific theories are well-supported by experiments and empirical data.
Want some more "theories"?
Big Bang Theory
Cell Theory
Evolution
Germ Theory
Atomic Theory
Molecular Theory
Kinetic Theory of gases
Climate CHange Theory
Plate Techtonics
Acoustic theory
Antenna theory
Theory of relativity
String theory
Does that mean all of those are 100% unfailable laws? Of course not, because all of science, by definition, has to be falsifiable. And that's
exactly why you have to take relativity into account.Consider these cases:
Case 1: Relativity is taken into account, neutrinos do not surpass light speed (LS)
Conclusion 1: Relativity holds, nothing changes
Case 2: Relativity is taken into account, neutrinos surpass LS
Conclusion 2: Our current understanding of relativity is wrong, new science is made
Case 3: Relativity is not taken into account
Conclusion 3: No conclusion can be drawn because existing concepts of reality (in this case, relativistic effects, which again, have been proven to exist) were not involved in the calculation.
In fact, if you remove relativity, neutrinos surpassing LS has no consequence, because relativity is the one that states LS cannot be broken in the first place.
Also, another hypothesis could be that they do prove the theory of relativity by arriving there slower than the speed of light because they actually traveled faster than it and therefore went backwards in time and therefore appear to have arrived slower, but were actually faster and therefore went backwards in time so it arrived earlier in time, and therefore they travel faster than the speed of light and obey the theory of relativity... Just a thought. (:
So we prove relativity, by letting the neutrinos disprove the theory?
Sounds legit.