Talk:Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

#2

Greetings! I'm new here and point #2 prompted me to make my first edit and added a paragraph thereto. It turns out that the radius of Moon's orbit is in fact increasing, that this has been predicted mathematically in the late 19th century and confirmed by measurement in the 20th, and that this is due to tidal mechanics. In short: it's real, it's definitely not anomalous, and I don't recall anything about either GR or SR being concerned specifically with tidal mechanics. And yes, I do tend to favor long sentences. Cheers! Mbc 02:22, 20 August 2012 (EDT)

#5

Quantum mechanics contradicts and disproves relativity. It's no consolation that relativity is approximately true at greater distances. Relativity is a mathematical theory that does not permit any exceptions. It would be like saying that 2 times 2 is usually 4. If 2 times 2 is ever not equal to 4, then arithmetic falls apart.--Andy Schlafly 23:27, 5 January 2014 (EST)

Mathematics at times reaches limits. For example, in the function f(x) = 1/x as x approaches 0, f(0) is undefined and we have never seen that value. The same thing is true when applying quantum mechanics near a black hole. We have never visited near a black hole to gather data, and what happens at the black hole is undefined. Wschact 07:31, 7 January 2014 (EST)

#6

That is like saying that "2+2" is usually 4. See my response to a similar point above.--Andy Schlafly 23:56, 5 January 2014 (EST)

The counterexample here depends on accuracy of measurement. As we gather more and better data, the theory to explain the data will evolve and improve. Again, "2+2" is usually 4, but if f(x) = 1/(x-4), what is f(2+2)? Wschact 07:44, 7 January 2014 (EST)

#10

You said that "Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance with regard to the direction of the force." I might be making a mistake, but shouldn't you be a little careful about this? If you rotate the frame, it's just fine as an inertial frame. But obviously, the force will have a different direction. But when you apply it to the two frames at hand, there is no rotation--just translation so the force has the same direction. (Also, does the other stuff I added look good?) AndyFrankinson 16:03, 26 January 2012 (EST)

Yes, that was a bit ambiguous - I've tidied it up. --QPR 10:39, 27 January 2012 (EST)

#36

My edit to #36, (Lorentz aether theory), as a footnote on the counterexamples page itself, has been reverted on the grounds of being incoherent. Can someone help out? Is it equivalent to SR in all cases? Is it equivalent to GR in all cases? Why was it abandoned? Was it for reasons of religious faith? JudyJ 19:29, 29 January 2012 (EST)

First, being cautious in this matter is good. Before putting something on a public wiki, you should check your facts carefully.
An important thing is to do your homework. Look around at the histories of pages, and the other contributions of people who write things. In this case, that's Roger Schlafly. What you will find is that he accepts relativity, but really doesn't like giving Einstein any credit for it. I don't know why. So, most likely, he wants the Lorentz theory to be considered the "authentic" theory, rather than Einsteinian relativity. Two things to do: Look at [[1]] to get your bearings, and look at who wrote #36. It wasn't Roger.
My understanding of the Lorentz theory is that it is equivalent to SR, but needs some fussing to get it equivalent to GR. Once that is done, it seems that the appropriately fussed Lorentz theory is equivalent, so you can say that "Einsteinian relativity has no aether, and Lorentz theory has an aether, but there is no experiment you can do to measure anything about it."
If this turns out to be the situation, you might say something like "both theories are equivalent, so this doesn't make relativity wrong; it just makes Lorentz theory just as good." And remember, you are rebutting claims that relativity is wrong, not that there are no other equivalent theories.
As far as the question of whether scientists prefer relativity for reasons of faith, my guess would be that relativity is simpler, because it doesn't postulate the existence of something that is completely unnecessary. I have no idea about people's reasons beyond that. My guess is that it's Occam's razor. I've never met anyone who embraces the Lorentz theory, and can't find an explanation of it in any of my textbooks or encyclopedias.
SamHB 23:37, 31 January 2012 (EST)

Removal of "talk-page-like" material

I have taken the liberty of moving two comments, made and signed by Andy Schlafly, from the essay page itself to this talk page. It was my intent, when creating the page, that it be kept "professional" and "scientific" and "dispassionate". (Complete with the use of the editorial "we".) This means that back-and-forth arguing, and signed comments in particular, should be here on this talk page, and that disputes on the actual essay page be carried out in a dispassionate-sounding manner.

My actual vision, since it was inevitable that arguments would occur, was that, to use a military metaphor, the two sides lob shells at each other from behind the ramparts of their respective fortresses, rather than coming over for hand-to-hand combat.  :-) That is, issues with this rebuttal page would be made by tightening up the arguments on the counterexamples page, would might lead to tightening up the arguments on the rebuttal page, and so on.


These comments were removed and folded into the narrative:

(1) "This is because the experimental capability to do so doesn't exist." - if that were true, then [why] were the costly experiments done if relativists were going to ignore the negative results?--Andy Schlafly 00:56, 26 February 2012 (EST)
(2) So? That wouldn't change the fact that this is a counterexample to Relativity.--Andy Schlafly 00:56, 26 February 2012 (EST)

SamHB 23:12, 16 March 2012 (EDT)

This is a bit odd. CP has an essay, largely written by Aschlafly, entitled "Counterexamples to Relativity." Presumably he states his best affirmative case there. CP also has this essay, entitled "Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity" largely written by people who disagree with the first essay. So, in 2012, Aschlafly adds signed comments to the rebuttal page, agreed to stop and his signed comments were moved to this page. Now, in 2014, Aschlafly again leaves signed comments in the essay saying that he disagrees with the rebuttals as a matter of mathematical truth.[2][3] The math behind both quantum mechanics and relativity is very difficult and subject to interpretation. It is not as clear as 2+2=4. I would suggest that Aschlafly make the original essay as clear and compelling as possible and that SamHB make the rebuttal essay as clear and compelling as possible, and that we trust the readers to understand that the authors disagree with each other without adding comments to the individual essay points repeating the fact of disagreement. Thanks, Wschact 07:22, 7 January 2014 (EST)
Personal tools