Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 3
- 1 Barack Obama
- 2 Jfraatz's comments
- 3 Reply to Johanan Raatz
- 4 Reply to Andrew Schlafly
- 5 Request for References
- 6 A Word on Relativism
- 7 orthogonal force
- 8 Cleanup
- 9 verification of time dilation
- 10 References
- 11 Eddington's proof
- 12 Cenk Uygur from the Young Turks attacks Conservapedia's Theory of Relativity article
- 13 Fully Tested
- 14 Claim of 20 Nobel Prizes for work related to relativity
- 15 References
- 16 Uncertainty
- 17 Neutrinos and the theory of relativity
- 18 lack of sufficient footnoting in the article plus the issue of the validity of the theory
- 19 Paradoxes
You misrepresent Barack Obama as an author of "The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics" by claiming in footnote 44 that "Tribe and Obama argued that...." Tribe is the sole author of the paper, and only thanks Obama (among others) for "analytic and research assistance". It's also misleading to claim that Obama "helped publish" the article, which implies that he somehow exerted political influence to get it published, knew the publishers, or was active in the publishing process. Obama was active in the research process, not the publication process. --MikeThicke 16:13, 8 December 2009 (EST)
Oh, so he just helped create the paper. He had nothing to do with publishing it at all! Listen, I'm going to try to assume good faith here, but I notice that your only contribution to this encyclopedia has been this one, completely unsubstantiated criticism of a five word phrase in an otherwise great article. You should focus on trying to create content, not on nitpicking and finding errors where none exist.
I will be watching your contributions. If you need any help, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. TonyPark 15:47, 10 January 2012 (EST)
- Relativity predicts absurd physical discontinuities
- I've studied relativity in depth, and those paradoxes all have very neat resolutions once you account for the change in reference frame.
- "and it contradicts logic,"
- That doesn't follow. Relativity is based on two premises and follows very logically from them.
- "the evidence,"
- On the contrary:
- Special relativity:
- 1. E=mc^2: nuclear power and the atomic bomb
2. Time dilation: The airplane experiments, and the time dilation of subatomic particle decay rates in a particle accelerator. 3.Mass increase: The exponential increase in energy required to get things fractionally closer to the speed of light.
- General relativity:
- 1. Prediction of a non-static universe.
2. Gravity waves -detected by their combined perturbative effect to a the rotation of a neutron star 3. Gravitational microlensing. 4. Time dilation experiments conducted with skyscrapers 5. Red-shifting near gravitational sources.
- "and the Bible."
- That is a very bizarre claim. There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts relativity and it is about like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. I'm curious. Where did you get this idea?
- "The biggest promoters of relativity today are more liberal than the Democratic Party, and that's saying a lot."
- ""First of all that's an ad hominem. Secondly it's not true. The physics department at my SECULAR university has a higher predominance of conservative and Christian people than any of the other sciences and much more so than the Marxist laden humanities departments.
- The professor who taught my relativity class -who happens to be the department expert on general relativity and quantum gravity- even invited us all to a talk after class once regarding the possibility of intelligent design of the physical constants. As it turns out this talk about intelligent design of the physical constants was given by a world famous physicist who happened to specialize in general relativity.
- "Promoting relativity causes a great deal of harm in how people view the world,"
- No, you're confusing relativity with relativism. The two are radically different. My other interest is in philosophy and the people in the philosophy dept. -many of whom are left-wing- laugh at the postmodernists who try to prove relativism with relativity.
- One is a physical theory based on constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames and the equivalence of physics in all reference frames. The other is a moral and epistemological theory that says that there are no absolutes. Special and general relativity are founded on absolutes. RelativiTY does not cause any harm. RelativiSM causes a lot of trouble. The two have nothing in common though save for a similar sounding name.
- "and has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars on fruitless projects like LIGO."
- LIGO, (which my university participates in -we do the supercomputer analysis of the data) has no results yet because they still need to make the instruments another order of magnitude stronger before they can get results.
- And LIGO is not a waste of money. Once they can detect gravity waves they will have a whole new way to study astronomy. The idea is to turn it into the gravity wave equivalent of a telescope. Instead of seeing the universe in light only we can see it in gravity waves as well. The advances in science accomplished by this are well worth the money put into them. A few million dollars is nothing compared to the billions the government wastes on social programs, and is a legitimate usage of money rather than money wasted on welfare programs. It's like funding NASA, you'd agree that manned moon landings are worth while right?
- ":You've heard none of this before because liberals control universities and don't allow open discussion and debate about their pet theories."
- No I've heard them before, but the arguments made are easily debunked and are rather pseudoscientific in nature. Usually the people making them don't even understand the theory properly. And I have no idea where you get the idea that they would have a political agenda that needs relativity to support it. Once again relativity and relativism are two very different things. Einstein even once said that he though that the theory of relativity was a poor choice of names.
- "Perhaps you think man-made global warming is not a liberal theory either?"
- Where do you come off comparing the two? One is a derived science open to much biased interpretation and data manipulation, the other is experimentally validated every time we turn on a particle accelerator. In fact some of the experiments they do at these labs require relativity to work. If relativity is false then they could not be doing the experiments that they are doing.
- And no Newtonian Mechanics and Atomic theory are not liberal theories either.
- I'm awfully curious as to what motivated this anti-relativity view. Your implication that relativity is "liberal" in any sense is highly bizarre. Also why single out relavity rather than QM classical mechanics or electrodynamics?
- I would like to note that I have used a political analog of general relativity as a means to create a model for how to warp the political fabric with corporatism so as to correct the democratic failure causing abortion. By modifying the analog of an "economic status-debt" tensor one can leverage misbehaving abortive parents into proper behavior by using corporate leverage on the democratic process. Johanan Raatz
Johanan, relativity is disproved by the Pioneer anomaly, for starters. The absurd discontinuities include what happens in the limit as velocity approaches the speed of light. The logical flaws include the defect of relativistic mass. Relativity has produced nothing of value, and certainly not the achievements you claim above. It's wasted hundreds of millions in taxpayer money and confused the minds of many.
Pick your very best argument and be concise if you have an open mind and want to discuss this. If your mind is closed and made up, then I recommend Wikipedia for you.--Andy Schlafly 13:07, 25 November 2009 (EST)
- First of all there are no absurd results when you reach relativistic velocities. Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed -unless you want to say that empirically observed measurements of such can not be so because they are illogical.
- MY BEST ARGUMENT: As a physics major I have done the Michelson-Morley experiment in my modern physics lab and seen the results with my own eyes. You can not tell me that relativity is based on assumptions rather than observations, as I have seen the very same observations that are the basis for relativity. Unless of course you are arguing that it can't be so and therefore my eyes must be deceiving me.
- QUESTIONS: 1.)How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?
- 2.) You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this. Saying this is almost like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. In what way does it contradict the Bible?
- 3.)You compared relativity to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). One is prone to much more interpretation than relativity and has been found to be based on fraudulent data. The effects of relativity by contrast empirically confirmed every time the particle accelerator at Fermilab turns on, and it is far more simple to observe and confirm than AGW. So my question is where do you come off comparing the two?
- COMMENTS: 1.)As someone who believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason. Despite your implication that relativity is a "liberal" theory I am no liberal and am therefore not so open-minded that my brains fall out. If something doesn't fit into objective a priori principles and empirical observation I have a hard time taking it seriously -I don't buy post-modernism or the idea that you can determine truth outside of objective means.
- 2.)Relativists in physics are not particularly liberal. My special relativity professor who happens to be the dept. specialist on relativity and quantum gravity even invited us to a talk after class one day. The topic was on the possibility of the intelligent design of the physical constants -at a secular university no less. The talk itself was to be given by a prominent physicist who also happened to specialize in relativity. You can't tell me that an extremely liberal professor would be inviting his students to talks on the possibility of intelligent design.
- 3.)RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM. I also happen to have a minor in philosophy, and relativism is not based on the same premises as relativity, nor does it have anything in common with relativity. The post-modernist sorts that try to prove the latter from the former are laughed at by philosophers of both left and right-wing stripes. You needn't worry about relativity causing relativism.
- 4.)Gravity waves have already been confirmed by there effects on neutron star rotation. LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves but rather as a telescope to see the universe in a "gravitational spectrum" in the same way you would normally see it with light. This is why they are spending so much money on it and it is well worth the cost -even $1-2billion. It will revolutionize astronomy once they increase the sensitivity by another order of magnitude or so -they are very close now. If you want to slash spending, the social programs spend hundreds of times that. LIGO isn't the money sucker, welfare etc. is. Johanan Raatz
- No, the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity. It barely has anything to do with relativity. How do you think that NASA is ever able to have any successful space missions, if all its theories of gravity have been disproved? There are no discontinuities or logical flaws. Relativistic mass was already being confirmed in 1901, just a couple of years after it was predicted. Do you have any reliable sources for any of what you say? RSchlafly 16:13, 25 November 2009 (EST)
- You say, "the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity." What do you think the "anomaly" is from, if not relativity?
- Perhaps you agree with Wikipedians, who admit that the data from the spacecraft is contrary to what is "predicted", but the Wikipedians refuse to admit that the contradicted theory is the theory of relativity! Maybe that omission fools some people, but it doesn't fool conservatives aware of liberal bias.--Andy Schlafly 16:28, 25 November 2009 (EST)
- Since when is relativity is a liberal theory? I have yet to see a good argument to this effect. User:jfraatz:Johanan Raatz
- I was the one who told you about the Pioneer anomaly. Possible explanations are listed on the WP page. One possibility is a gravitational effect different from known theories (Newton and relativity). But what is your point? The WP page already says that. You are not addressing the errors in this article. The stuff about discontinuities, hypotheses, resistance, and quantum mechanics are all false. RSchlafly 18:25, 25 November 2009 (EST)
- The "point" is that Wikipedians (liberal wannabee scientists) won't state which theory is contradicted by the data. You're just guessing when you say "Newton and relativity."
- This is like the feminists who won't use certain words, like "girl" or "gentlemanly". If confronted with a situation where no substitute works, a feminist will still find a way not to say the "forbidden" word. They'll congratulate a new mother on her baby girl by calling her a "baby woman"!
- Try saying expressly on Wikipedia that the theory of relativity is contradicted by the Pioneer data and watch that be erased by its liberal editors. Do you think that is science, or logic?--Andy Schlafly 18:32, 25 November 2009 (EST)
- I am not guessing. Just read the WP page. It says, "The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviation ... slowing down slightly more than expected ... The anomaly has no universally accepted explanation." Possible explanations include "modification of the law of gravity." Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range. They are either both accurate or inaccurate. What more do you want? The article has links to modified gravity theories. What does this have to do with this CP relativity page? RSchlafly 19:31, 25 November 2009 (EST)
- You are guessing that "Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range." I doubt they predict identical results for this Pioneer data. Does the Pioneer anomaly contradict only the theory of relativity, or Newtonian gravity also? Are the data closer to one theory than the other? If this were science, then the Wikipedia article would say. Of course, this isn't really science, and Wikipedians won't expressly admit the data conflicts with relativity. If you inserted mention of the theory of relativity into the Wikipedia page, then I bet it would be erased.--Andy Schlafly 21:44, 26 November 2009 (EST)
- I would expect that the results at that range would be in the margin of error for both theories. General relativity only starts to become significant in extreme gravitational fields and the earth does not have an extreme gravitational field.
- As for Wikipedia covering up evidence regarding relativity to suit a liberal bias, let me make a comment about that. I happen to also be active on Wikipedia, and from my experience the kind of people that edit the science pages are not the same kind of people who generally edit the political/philosophy pages. I have noticed a great deal of political bias in the people who dominate the latter pages, but not at all the former. I really don't think they did is -if they did it at all- for political reasons. Johanan Raatz
- The results are not within the standard of error. You're in denial: the results contradict the theory of relativity. And Wikipedians will never allow that truth on their pages. The Wikipedians who edit the science paiges there are just as liberal as those who edit the other pages, and it's implausible to suggest otherwise. Check out the global warming pages on Wikipedia, for example, if you doubt this. (My response to your earlier comments are below).--Andy Schlafly 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)
- The Pioneer anomaly is not known to contradict either relativity or Newtonian gravity. Contradicting gravity is just one of several possible explanations, and no one is accepted. If it contradicts one then it contradicts the other, as the two theories say the same for Pioneer data. The gravity on Pioneer is extremely weak, and far outside the range where relativity would make any difference. RSchlafly 14:20, 27 November 2009 (EST)
Reply to Johanan Raatz
Mr. Raatz said, "Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed ...."
- Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a direction orthogonal to its fast motion. Predictably you will say you never thought or heard about this logical problem before, so please then comment on why you've never thought or heard about this logical flaw. By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades.
- Sorry to interrupt, but the answer is yes, according to relativity. If a particle is zipping by at high speed, any addition to its velocity---whether along or orthogonal to its direction of motion---is described by a Lorentz transformation multiplied into the Tv for its current velocity.
- This is not some obscure question that I expect physicists to have never thought about. The addition rules for velocity in parallel and orthogonal directions are a very basic component of special relativity, and directly follow from the Lorentz transformation. All of this is elementary linear algebra. Indeed, relativistic momentum (and what people loosely call "relativistic mass") can be derived from those velocity addition laws by differentiating them with respect to time.
- You seem to be implying that this is some sort of internal contradiction. But why? There is nothing contradictory about the fact that speeding up a particle is progressively harder, even if you try to do it orthogonally to its present velocity relative to you. The basic fact is that for momentum to be conserved under the Lorentz transformation, you need a factor of gamma in the momentum (which, again, is loosely interpreted as a "relativistic mass", since p=mv*gamma combined with a classial p=mv leads people to see m*gamma as the "mass" part. I find that interpretation more confusing than useful, but it has many adherents.) --NgSmith
- If the new force is orthogonal (perpendicular) to the velocity, then it should be unaffected by the relativistic mass. Indeed, some relativists have shifted to "relativistic momentum," which is a vector, to try to avoid this logical dilemma.--Andy Schlafly 12:45, 29 November 2009 (EST)
- Why? I see no reason why forces "should" behave that way.
- Forces do behave that way in Newtonian mechanics, but they don't behave that way in special relativity. That is because in relativity, velocity vectors do not add.
- There is no reason why relativity "should" predict effects that are in line with our Newtonian intuition. The only thing a theory should predict is the correct outcome of an experiment.--NgSmith
Mr. Raatz says his "best argument" is the "Michelson-Morley experiment."
- If that's your best argument, then this case is closed. That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.
Mr. Raatz asks, "How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?"
- What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.
Mr. Raatz says, "You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this."
- You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible. Why is that? The Bible sells 100 times more copies annually than books on the New York Times bestseller list, and is undeniably the most influential book in history (Newton attributed his insights to it), yet relativists don't read it. Do you? The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.
Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable.
Mr. Raatz says he "believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason" and "I am no liberal."
- Really? So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray? I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it.
Mr. Raatz says, "RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM."
- Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism. Check out the first few pages of the respected historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, where he links the "discovery" of relativity to the popularity of moral relativism that followed. He's studied history more than you have, I think.
Mr. Raatz wrote, "LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves ...."
- LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons. You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle. How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do? That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.--Andy Schlafly 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)
Reply to Andrew Schlafly
- 1.) :Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a direction orthogonal to its fast motion.
The same relativistic mass is not observed in the reference frame orthogonal to the motion. However the total velocity between two objects can be calculated using the Pythagorean theorem in all 3 directions. This is the velocity which is used to calculate relativistic mass and other Lorentz transformations.
- 2.) "By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades."
Yes because relativistic mass has been OBSERVED for decades.
- 3.) If that's your best argument, then this case is closed. That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.
If the light had been traveling at different velocities as the Earth orbited the sun why then did I not see different interference patterns? In the experiment I indirectly observed the speed of light to be the same regardless of reference frame.
Question you have a background in law and engineering. Do you have a background in physics?
- 4.)What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.
Hmm, ok so there is another theory out there that explains why time slows down with respect to another reference frame, that is not relativity? I would very much like to hear about this theory.
- 5.)Do you?
Yes I've read the Bible. And I find it insulting that you would assume otherwise.
- 6.) You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible. Why is that?
Well are you going to tell me what this supposed contradiction is? I looked at the conservative words essay and I found "non-local" there. In the definition I found a reference to Jesus healing the sick kid from far away. If you mean to tell me that this violated relativity then you are wrong. First of all, such an action could have occurred at the speed of light and would have allowed for the kid to get better before his father returned home. Secondly Jesus being omnipotent has access to Hilbert space and therefore could operate outside of space-time.
- 7.)The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.
You clearly do not know my physics dept. then. Of all the science depts. this one has the highest number of Christians and conservatives than any of the others. In fact many of my friends (the same ones who study relativity) would read the Bible in the physics lounge. (and this was not isolated to the undergrads)
- 8.)Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable.
That's not what I was asking. I was asking how one theory -relativity(independent of who believes it) is comparable to another -AGW (independent of those who believe it)
- 9.)Really? So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray? I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it.
Try me! You bet wrong. Prayer in schools is very good for the salutory effect it has on society. Read Irving Kristol.
- 10.)Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism.
Yes that's because the masses are idiots. That's not relativities fault though. It should be noted that Einstein thought that the label of "relativity" for his theory was shoddy and that he wanted a better one. Unfortunately "relativity" stuck and as a result some idiots took it the wrong way. I can not do anything about this, but it does not imply that relativity is wrong.
- 11.):LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons.
No gravity waves. Gravitons are far smaller and according to my personal model of quantum gravity do not exist as such. (well technically they "exist" in a sense, but that would be a bad way of thinking about how gravity is quantized)Gravitons are a shoddy way to describe the real phenomenon. Gravity waves are not the same as gravitons though.
- 12.)"You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle.
In today's world that level of money is not a boondoggle. Social spending is a boondoggle, cap&trade is a boondoggle, and healthcare is a boondoggle, spending a little money on sciences is not a boondoggle. Look in comparison to other programs this is a pittance. It's like the liberals who complain that NASA is taking up too much money when it is only spending less than 10 bill a year compared to the 100's of billions eaten up by their social programs.
Besides I am a neoconservative and do not have exactly the same philosophy on government programs that other conservatives might. I mostly agree on opposing socialism in government programs, but that isn't the same thing as basic projects for the public good or for the advancement of science.
- 13.)"How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do?"
Fair enough. I believe LIGO accepts donations as well.
- 14.)That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.
Most people would like to revolutionize astronomy with the gravitational equivalent of the telescope wouldn't you agree?
P.S. if you really think I'm a liberal, look up my group MemeShock on facebook. You will see that I am most definitely not a liberal nor a leftist. Please stop making assumptions about me.
- 1)Johanan wrote, "The same relativistic mass is not observed in the reference frame orthogonal to the motion."
- No one changed the reference frame. I said there is a force orthogonal to the high velocity that supposedly causes an increase in relativistic mass. Mass is a scalar, not a vector. Does that force have to contend with the relativistic mass as claimed? You even say that this has been observed, so the answer should be easy for you.
- 3) Johanan wrote, "If the light had been traveling at different velocities as the Earth orbited the sun why then did I not see different interference patterns?"
- Michelson-Morley suggests that an ether does not exist, but it in no way proves the many claims of relativity.
- Johanan wrote, "Question you have a background in law and engineering. Do you have a background in physics?"
- So you're going to try to plug weaknesses in your argument with a personal put-down? Not here.
- Johanan wrote, "Yes I've read the Bible."
- Many read it in their youth. That makes the termination of reading the Bible by them all the more striking. I asked if you read the Bible (now). Once people buy into relativity, they stop reading it. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. That speaks volumes about what relativity really is.
- 6) Johanan wrote, "Well are you going to tell me what this supposed contradiction is? I looked at the conservative words essay and I found "non-local" there. In the definition I found a reference to Jesus healing the sick kid from far away. If you mean to tell me that this violated relativity then you are wrong. First of all, such an action could have occurred at the speed of light and would have allowed for the kid to get better before his father returned home. Secondly Jesus being omnipotent has access to Hilbert space and therefore could operate outside of space-time."
- The healing occurred instantaneously and, yes, that contradicts the assumption in relativity about no information traveling faster than the speed of light. There are no exceptions allowed by relativity. It's a real contradiction. It's a not a "sign" as described by the Bible if it is impossible.
- 7)Johanan wrote, "You clearly do not know my physics dept. then. Of all the science depts. this one has the highest number of Christians and conservatives than any of the others. In fact many of my friends (the same ones who study relativity) would read the Bible in the physics lounge. (and this was not isolated to the undergrads)
- Maybe you have 95-year-old pack-a-day cigarette smokers there too, who have never been sick a day in their lives. Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are particularly liberal, more so than, for example, material science types. Keep in mind that many of the promoters of the phony man-made global warming are physics professors.
- 8)Johanan wrote, "That's not what I was asking. I was asking how one theory -relativity(independent of who believes it) is comparable to another -AGW (independent of those who believe it)"
- The correlation is unmistakable. Perhaps both attract people who like to misuse science for liberal goals.
- 9)Johanan wrote, "Prayer in schools is very good for the salutory effect it has on society. Read Irving Kristol."
- Do you support classroom prayer then? A clear "yes" would suffice.
- 10)Johanan wrote, "... the masses are idiots. That's not relativities [sic] fault though. It should be noted that Einstein thought that the label of "relativity" for his theory was shoddy and that he wanted a better one. Unfortunately "relativity" stuck and as a result some idiots took it the wrong way. I can not do anything about this, but it does not imply that relativity is wrong."
- So ... you're fine with promoting something that is misleading the "masses" and harming their lives, as long as you can say it is their fault, not yours.
- Johanan, I spend my time helping people. Relativity has not helped a single person in any way, ever. It's misled and hurt a lot of people. Relativity is the most unproductive theory ever embraced, and it's a complete dead-end. I'm not going to waste more of my time on it, and I encourage you to open your mind and become more productive yourself.
- Johanan wrote, "P.S. if you really think I'm a liberal, look up my group MemeShock on facebook. You will see that I am most definitely not a liberal nor a leftist. Please stop making assumptions about me."
- You don't seem to be much of a conservative either. Conservatives advance society in a productive way. Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite that wastes taxpayer money, misleads well-intentioned students and pushes the masses toward relativism. Yet you're spending your time defending and promoting it. I'm moving on to more productive topics on this site, and hope you can do likewise.--Andy Schlafly 18:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)
- It's not just an issue in the States; all over the world huge amounts of government (ie taxpayers') money is being spent promoting this theory. Why would governments spend so much on something that turns people away from the Bible? I think we all know the answer to that... TrondE 23:08, 27 November 2009 (EST)
- You're asking the wrong question TrondE. The question is "Does relativity turn people away from the Bible?" If you research relativity and relativism you'll discover that relativism only latches onto to relativity for incidental reasons. Furthermore the reasons for relativism's success exist for entirely different reasons. We'd have the 60's with or without Einstein. Johanan Raatz
- Andy Wrote: "I said there is a force orthogonal to the high velocity that supposedly causes an increase in relativistic mass. Mass is a scalar, not a vector. Does that force have to contend with the relativistic mass as claimed?"
- You don't measure only one component of the velocity when you are measuring the relative velocity. You combine them with the Pythagorean theorem. So there is no change in mass when you are in a reference frame orthogonal to the moving object than when you are in a reference frame paralel to it.
- Andy Wrote: Michelson-Morley suggests that an ether does not exist, but it in no way proves the many claims of relativity.
- Actually it's the basis for the postulate that the c is the same in all reference frames. You wrongly claimed that this was an assumption, but it is based on experimental evidence.
- If the ether does not exist than "c" does not have a preferred reference frame to be constant in. Thus instead it is constant in all reference frames.
- To be fair there was a third model "ballistic theory" which suggested that the photons moved at speed c with respect to their emitters, but this was ruled out by observation. It led to several optical effects that were not seen in astronomical photographs, notably in observations of binary stars in which the light from the two stars could be measured in an interferometer. If it were correct, the light from the stars should cause fringe shifting due to the velocity of the stars being added to the speed of the light, but again, no such effect could be seen. The only remaining model was the Lorentzian one.
- Andy Wrote: So you're going to try to plug weaknesses in your argument with a personal put-down? Not here.
- No, I brought it up because you make several statements in the page which are blatantly erroneous. First of all you argue that relativity is not based on evidence but assumptions, which is simply not true as we are discussing here, then you do not seem to understand why quantum non-locality does not violate relativity, and lastly you ignore the vast experimental evidence in support of it. Most notably the massive time dilation observed in muon particles. I can only guess based on this that you don't have enough background in physics.
- Andy Wrote: "Many read it in their youth. That makes the termination of reading the Bible by them all the more striking."
Well I was just reading it earlier today and last week as well.
- Andy Wrote: "Once people buy into relativity, they stop reading it. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. That speaks volumes about what relativity really is."
- That sounds strikingly like the "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. I don't know where you got the idea that reading relativity as opposed to any other theory caused this, but the connection you are implying is absurd and baseless. Where is your statistical evidence that tells you that people who read about relativity as opposed to say plate tectonic theory or germ theory are more likely to not read their Bible's afterwards? This suggestion that there is a connection is simply quite ridiculous.
- Andy wrote: "The healing occurred instantaneously and, yes, that contradicts the assumption in relativity about no information traveling faster than the speed of light. There are no exceptions allowed by relativity. It's a real contradiction. It's a not a "sign" as described by the Bible if it is impossible."
- It's not a contradiction of relativity if Jesus can operate outside of space-time. Relativity does not say anything about what goes on outside of space-time. You failed to address my suggestion of this possibility though.
- Andy Wrote "Maybe you have 95-year-old pack-a-day cigarette smokers there too, who have never been sick a day in their lives. Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are particularly liberal, more so than, for example, material science types. Keep in mind that many of the promoters of the phony man-made global warming are physics professors."
- Look I don't know what personal experiences you had at Harvard, but coming from my dept. these claims are down right bizarre:
- "Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are particularly liberal, more so than, for example, material science types."
- Well I'm denying it for one. Listen, you keep spouting this off, but there is simply no basis for it. Relativists are no more liberal than quantum theorists, particle physicists, or those who study superconductors. I haven't the slightest notion where you got this idea.
- Andy Wrote: "The correlation is unmistakable. Perhaps both attract people who like to misuse science for liberal goals."
- Andy, part of this whole discussion is WHETHER OR NOT relativity supports a liberal goal NOT IF. To say that the correlation is unmistakable because those who promote relativity are misusing science for liberal goals is begging the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy, and does not resolve anything.
- Andy Wrote: "Do you support classroom prayer then? A clear "yes" would suffice."
- Ok YES, and FYI I was also homeschooled from 1st grade to 12th, voted for Bush in 04, write conservative editorials for my school paper nearly every week, and run the largest right-wing memetic engineering group on facebook.
- Andy Wrote: "So ... you're fine with promoting something that is misleading the "masses" and harming their lives, as long as you can say it is their fault, not yours."
- 1.)Ok look, first of all relativISM appeared for reasons entirely different than relativITY. Supporters of relativISM seized upon relativITY to lend credence to their view. However, relativism would both exist and flourish WITHOUT relativity. The relativism in today's society is not caused by relativity. Relativity is merely incidental to relativism.
- 2.) Secondly, just because something can cause people to go to a wrong conclusion does not make that thing wrong. Relativism is a wrong conclusion. Relativity in my theory is a right premise. Just because some people use a non sequiter argument to jump from one to the other does not make relativity wrong. You have to understand that relativity is true or false INDEPENDENT of whether or not it causes certain people who are ignorant of relativity to be adherents of moral relativism.
- 3.) With this in mind I will note you might consider certain scientific discoveries as what Leo Strauss would think of as "dangerous truths." There are currently several such theories that if taken the wrong way might tend one towards atheism which in turn could lead to moral relativism. As such I prefer them to be left to the scientific world and not popularized in such a way to undermine moral values, however that does not make them any less true or false. I do not personally think of relativity to be one of these, but if you do that's fine, just remember that just because something might have adverse effects to the untrained mind doesn't make it any less true or false in itself.
- Andy Wrote: "Johanan, I spend my time helping people. Relativity has not helped a single person in any way, ever. It's misled and hurt a lot of people. Relativity is the most unproductive theory ever embraced, and it's a complete dead-end."
- That's not true. It's led (not misled) people to make great advances in astronomy, and it HAS been productive in keeping particle's alive in particle accelerators for far longer than would normally be allowed. Furthermore it is useful in keeping GPS satellites on time when they start to slip off by a few seconds every year: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html GPS recievers calculate for gravitational time dilation to keep on track. Lastly you can't tell me that this if it works will not be both very cool and very useful: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/timetravel-01a.html
- Andy Wrote: "I'm not going to waste more of my time on it, and I encourage you to open your mind and become more productive yourself."
- Then explain muon time dilation without relativity. I'm highly skeptical that another explanation exists, but if you can find one by all means share it.
- Andy Wrote:"You don't seem to be much of a conservative either. Conservatives advance society in a productive way. Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite that wastes taxpayer money,
misleads well-intentioned students and pushes the masses toward relativism. Yet you're spending your time defending and promoting it.
- This is circular reasoning Andy. You start with your conclusion: "Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite" and argue back that therefore I must not be a conservative because conservatives are productive. Remember we are still debating whether or not relativity is productive. You also haven't proved why it misleads well-intentioned students. You can't argue that funding LIGO is liberal because relativity is an unproductive theory and therefore LIGO will be unproductive.
- In a few years you might be surprised at what LIGO will do. I for one would love a new way to map dark matter. It would be a very nice way to figure out if I am on the right track with my quantum gravity theory for one thing.
- Andy Wrote: "I'm moving on to more productive topics on this site, and hope you can do likewise."
- Don't worry, I intend to put together and edit many political pages that I think you will like! ;)
Request for References
Andy, you've said several times that learning relativity causes people to stop reading the bible, and that specialists in relativity are more liberal than physics professors (who are more liberal than college professors overall). Do you have any sources for these claims? In my experience, people in physics are as conservative as other fields of science, and more so than biologists. Thanks in advance for the sources. --WLink 13:22, 28 November 2009 (EST)
- You can see plenty of evidence on the talk pages here. In addition, I've seen at least one survey indicating that the level of atheism is higher among physicists than, say, mathematics, despite the close connection between the fields. There are also prominent, widely promoted physicists who describe themselves as atheists, such as Richard Feynman and Steven Weinberg, more so than in mathematics or other analogous fields.
- Spend some time in a physics department, as I have, and you won't doubt that belief in relativity and reading/discussing the Bible are inversely correlated.--Andy Schlafly 13:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)
- Could you link to the study you have referenced above, or give some information on it? Also, as you've pointed out, knowing one person who smoked into their seventies and didn't get cancer does not prove anything. Similarly, the anecdotal evidence on this talk page doesn't verify your claim. The evidence from the talk page seems to lean the other way- most of the editors seem to think that plenty of physicists who believe in relativity also read the Bible, but it is all anecdotal. --WLink 08:12, 29 November 2009 (EST)
- Yes, there are some physicists who are atheists, but what is the relation to relativity? Can you even show me one person who understands relativity and does not believe it? There are people who think that relativity might have to be modified to explain some anomaly, or people who propose such hypotheses such as this . But who denies the basics of relativity? I'll count people inside or outside physics departments, but not articles like this CP page that are filled with inaccuracies about what relativity is. RSchlafly 16:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)
- The defense of relativity grows increasingly illogical. Now the promoters' test is whether there is "one person who understands relativity and does not believe it?"
- OK, let's try that test out. The Koran is written in Arabic, and I can't name one person who understands it who does not believe it. Does that mean, per your logic, that it must therefore be true? All liberal theories rely on double standards, and you've just established one for your theory.
- Note, by the way, that relativity is a mathematical system. It does not adapt to counterexamples any more than number theory could adapt to a revelation that 1+1 did not quite equal 2.--Andy Schlafly 19:47, 28 November 2009 (EST)
- Yes, there are a lot of people understand the Koran and do not believe it. Eg, here is a leftist-atheist-evolutionist who read the Koran (altho probably an English translation). 
- I am not arguing that relativity is true. I am just arguing to correct the errors in this CP article. If relativity does not have counterexamples, then why does the article complain about discontinuties and logic problems? It can be mathematically proved that no such discontinuities or logic problems exist.
- You say that belief in relativity is correlated with various other beliefs, but you offer no support at all. I do deny those correlations. They are contrary to my experience, and contrary to common sense. Do you have some examples of right-wingers who say that relativity is entirely wrong? RSchlafly 20:54, 28 November 2009 (EST)
- I found nothing of value in your link, and certainly nothing claiming that anyone read the real Koran (in Arabic) and didn't believe it. You have a double standard for relativity.
- But if you're not arguing that relativity is true, then that point is moot. Relativity has many counterexamples, and it looks like we need an entry analogous to counterexamples to evolution. The Pioneer "anomaly", the more precise Mercury perihelion data, the discontinuity as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, the logical problem of an orthogonal force on relativistic mass, the lack of curvature in overall space as observed by measurements, the universe near the Big Bang, and I think even new data for the pulsar for which the sole Nobel Prize for relativity tends to disprove it. As if that weren't enough, the Bible contradicts relativity also. As to people who say relativity is false, there's a long list (such as Tom Bethell) but I've already demonstrated that argument to be fallacious.--Andy Schlafly 21:23, 28 November 2009 (EST)
- "Relativity has many counterexamples, and it looks like we need an entry analogous to counterexamples to evolution."
- Cherry-picking the anomalous data points that don't fit into relativity, while ignoring the vast majority of the evidence which does confirm it is not scientific. Johanan Raatz
- "You can see plenty of evidence on the talk pages here." I don't think that makes a good citation for an encyclopedia article. Do we have any citations to something more concrete and objective? --NgSmith
- Lack of Bible-reading is so prevalent among relativists that I hardly think a citation is needed to demonstrate it. Not to pick on editor Raatz, but take a look at his complete lack of Bible-related edits here despite his insistence that he still reads it: . Indeed, it's difficult to imagine any theory other than relativity that so sours an impressionable student on the Bible. The theory of evolution, perhaps.--Andy Schlafly 15:25, 29 November 2009 (EST)
Andy- you have made the claim again, and now you are claiming its so obvious you don't need a citation, but it only appears obvious to you. Any single example is anecdotal- as you yourself have pointed out with your "one person who smokes into old age doesn't prove cigarettes don't cause cancer" argument. You are making a claim, and I for one would appreciate knowing why you believe it.
I cannot speak for Raatz, but I myself do read the bible, and the only contributions I have made to this project are attempted edits to relativity. The reason is that I am a physicist, and felt that my contributions would best be made in this specialized area. Conservapedia appears to have many knowledgeable of the bible, but few physicists. Not making bible related edits is not evidence of not reading the bible- it could be evidence of finding the current articles satisfactory. As a physicist, I find this relativity article simply embarrassing, and hence the endeavor to improve it. I encourage you, Andy, to take your famously open mind and sit down with a good introduction to the theory, and work through some standard introductory problems. I think that actually learning what you try to criticize may help greatly. --WLink 16:06, 29 November 2009 (EST)
- WLink, all your edits are provoking controversies and arguing. Why not do something constructive? JacobB 16:09, 29 November 2009 (EST)
- I honestly feel as if the most constructive thing I can do is to use my expertise as a physicist to edit this article, and the other physics related articles. Unfortunately, these changes have been reverted. Perhaps you are right, it is time I use my limited time for something constructive and leave this site. How many scientists and scientifically minded people do you think you lose due to arguments on this very page? --WLink 18:17, 30 November 2009 (EST)
- Lastwordism, claims of authority, and puerile threats? You've been learning from Liberal style, have you not? DouglasA 18:20, 30 November 2009 (EST)
- I'd be very sorry if this page pushed you off the site, WLink. I sometimes get exasperated with the constant bickering on this talk page as well; however, I've found other pages I can constructively edit in the meantime. There are definitely many other pages that need work from people who know something about physics; I hope you decide to stay and help. --EvanW 18:26, 30 November 2009 (EST)
- Lastwordism, claims of authority, and puerile threats? You've been learning from Liberal style, have you not? DouglasA 18:20, 30 November 2009 (EST)
- I honestly feel as if the most constructive thing I can do is to use my expertise as a physicist to edit this article, and the other physics related articles. Unfortunately, these changes have been reverted. Perhaps you are right, it is time I use my limited time for something constructive and leave this site. How many scientists and scientifically minded people do you think you lose due to arguments on this very page? --WLink 18:17, 30 November 2009 (EST)
- WLink, I hope that you want to do more than make liberal edits to the Theory of Relativity. EvanW has good suggestions and I hope you can stay with an open mind. But we're not going to become like liberal, atheistic Wikipedia, which is already starting to sink like the Titanic.--Andy Schlafly 20:07, 30 November 2009 (EST)
A Word on Relativism
Despite implications made here relativism did not come into being or become popular due to relativity. The roots of modern popular relativism can be traced back to Freud and in particular a group of neo-Marxist intellectuals known as the "critical theorists" who combined Marx with Freud to argue that all morality was merely a construct to be "liberated" from:
Basically they viewed all ideologies (even correct ones) as "oppressive." Therefore any correct moral system based on an objective ideology was "wrong" in their eyes. Thus no one moral system could be thought of as correct -hence relativism.
The critical theorists came over around WW2 to escape Germany and set up in the States. Here they then were the movers and shakers behind the counterculture of the 60's, which is where moral relativism comes from today.
Again it has nothing to do with relativity. It would have gone off on it's own with or without relativity.
- That overlooks what the leading British historian Paul Johnson says (he starts his book about the 20th century with a discussion of the theory of relativity, and how it led to increased relativism), that overlooks what the liberal law professor Laurence Tribe says (he wrote a law review article linking the theory of relativity to a call for more abortion "rights"), that overlooks what now-President Barack Obama did in allegedly helping with that article, and that downplays the dictionary dates for the terms:
- relativity (1834)
- relativism (1865), but its secondary meaning about moral relativity came later, I think, and its additional meaning is this: "relativity".--Andy Schlafly 23:42, 28 November 2009 (EST)
Jfrattz, I see that despite my admonition on your user talk page, you continue to engage in 90/10 bickering over relativity, with the same re-hashed points that you and countless others have brought up before. Go write a new article, or find one that could benefit from more information. JacobB 23:43, 28 November 2009 (EST)
- I did a little Googling and found that, while many people have linked relativity to moral relativism, Einstein himself apparently disbelieved such links: "Asked what effect his theory would have on religion, he said: 'None. Relativity is a purely scientific matter and has nothing to do with religion'" . Another page says (whether rightly or wrongly; I don't know) that "He himself held to firm standards of right and wrong and saw moral relativism... as a bankrupt philosophy." I think that the point of view of the discoverer of the theory should at least be mentioned. I'd add it myself, but the page's locked. --EvanW 15:42, 29 November 2009 (EST)
Evan, please read the top of this page. It is made clear that bringing up old points isn't helpful, and you'll find this point at Talk:Theory_of_relativity/Archive_1#Moral_Relativism_line_needs_to_go. Any questions you have about this subject can be answered there. Check the archives before posting. JacobB 15:48, 29 November 2009 (EST)
- Jacob's point is well-taken. That said, I will respond to Evan. Einstein's opinion on physics is relevant, but I don't see the significance of his opinions on religion, politics, philosophy, education or the media. Einstein was not an expert in American politics, for example. This suggestion falls into the same category as opinions by J. Robert Oppenheimer on when to use the atom bomb. He wasn't an expert on war or foreign relations, so his opinion on use was irrelevant.--Andy Schlafly 15:52, 29 November 2009 (EST)
- Thanks for the reference, Jacob... <quickly read old discussion...> Okay, it seems that the consensus there was to omit the section entirely. However, it seems to have come back in as the first paragraph in "Political aspects". I can see arguments for either including or excluding it. As for whether to include Einstein's opinion - good point, Andy. I reread the current page, and on second look, it doesn't seem to be as bad as Johanan Raatz seems to think. --EvanW 15:57, 29 November 2009 (EST)
ASchlafly and Jfraatz seem to have been talking past each other on the subject of what happens when a force is applied orthogonally vs. longitudinally to a relativistic particle. There is no need for the acrimony here, and there is no need for arguing over the significance of mass being a scalar rather than a vector.
The right way to analyze problems involving force and acceleration is with the "4-velocity", "4-acceleration", "4-momentum", and "4-force". These are the modern concepts that people use. The 4-velocity is a vector in spacetime. It is always a unit vector; it just "tilts" when a particle moves. The 4-momentum is the 4-velocity times the mass. That's the "rest mass". The notion of "relativistic mass" is old-fashioned. The right way to think about it is that the momentum increases faster than mv, doing so as if the mass had gone up. But it's better to think of the mass as staying the same, and the formula for momentum being rather than just mv.
The 4-acceleration is the rate of change in the 4-velocity, as measured by the proper time, and the 4-force is the rate of change of 4-velocity. Conservation of momentum applies, and says that 4-forces cancel, same as in Newton's laws. So you can find the deflection of a particle, correct for relativity, by checking conservation of momentum.
This stuff is treated in modern physics textbooks, such as Halliday and Resnick.
SaraT 00:19, 2 December 2009 (EST)
I've removed a fair chunk of "material" which used extensive math jargon, (suspiciously) well beyond most students, to make relativity look complex and true. If other editors really value it, "mathematics of relativity" may be a good place for it. This should help prevent our science articles from becoming incomprehensible like WP's. DouglasA 02:05, 6 February 2010 (EST)
- I think that you have removed useful material. I do not think that it was complex or beyond most students. It was elementary and well-explained. I think that you have made the article harder to read, and less informative. I suggest putting it back in. RSchlafly 02:33, 8 February 2010 (EST)
- I agree with Roger here, and have restored the information removed. While this certainly isn't Wikipedia, I was guilty of not posting here explaining why I restored it...although in my mind the earlier revert was an answer to the edit comment that the removed material was over-complicated. My accumulated knowledge of complex math most likely equals 1/1000th of Roger's and I could grasp it, making it understandable to most secondary students, I would guess.... --ṬK/Admin/Talk 02:54, 8 February 2010 (EST)
verification of time dilation
At the end of the "Time Dilation" sub-section, I propose adding the following paragraph:
Since the 1960’s, the time-shifting effects predicted by general relativity have been tested by comparing clocks placed at different elevations in the earth’s gravitation field. The most recent measurements indicate that gravity’s effect on time is predictable to 7 parts per billion. In this work, Holger Mueller and colleagues shot cesium atoms in an arc through a vacuum chamber. Using a laser they were able to bump some of the atoms to a slightly higher path. Then, they measured a small, but significant phase difference between the atoms in the two different arcs. These measurements provide strong support for Einstein’s theory of general relativity.
- It appears to me that you have misstated the result. Your wording is similar to the news story here , but the actual article here  says that the acceleration of gravity was measured to a precision of 7 parts per billion. RSchlafly 12:34, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
Müller, H., Peters, A, and Chu, S. Nature, Vol. 463, 18 February 2010, pp. 926-927.
--RustyR 13:02, 4 May 2010 (EDT)
It is stated in the introduction of the article that Eddington's claims were later discredited, which while a popular story, is actually not true. Eddington's Claims were, upon review, found to be valid, and have been verified countless times since, which is ironic given the current view that Eddington, not Einstein, may have been closer to the truth before that very discovery made him a believer in Einstein's theory. Vikten 12:08, 12 August 2010 (EDT)
Cenk Uygur from the Young Turks attacks Conservapedia's Theory of Relativity article
The equations for special relativity assume that it is forever impossible to attain a velocity faster than the speed of light and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent, hypotheses that can never be fully tested.
One of the key principles of the empirical method is that hypotheses can never be "fully tested" until they are proven false. If we were to push an object with mass above the speed of light then the theory would be proven false, and the hypothesis would be fully tested.
I don't think we should count the fact that this hypothesis has not yet been proven false as a strike against relativity. Stoob
The unsupported statement that "over 20 physics prizes have been given for work closely related to relativity" looks like hyperbole. Since relativists falsely claim that the theory explains almost anything, a relativist could assert that every Nobel Prize in physics is really being given for Relativity! The truth, of course, is otherwise.--Andy Schlafly 13:24, 24 October 2010 (EDT)
- Here is my count of Nobel prizes for relativity. 1902 Lorentz (relativistic treatment of Maxwell's equations), 1907 Michelson (light speed being constant in all frames), 1921 Einstein, 1933 Dirac (relativistic quantum theory of electron), 1945 Pauli (exclusion principle in a relativistic quantum field theory), 1965 Feynman (relativistic quantum theory of electromagnetic fields) 1978 (big bang radiation), 1983 (black holes), 1993 (gravity waves), 1968, 1969, 1976, 1979, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1990, 1995, 1999, 2004, and 2008 (last 11 all for contributions to relativistic high energy physics). I realize that you think that relativity is overrated, but even if so, the Nobel committee has been giving prizes for it. Relativity was an essential part of all of these prizes. RSchlafly 18:55, 24 October 2010 (EDT)
Uncertainty priciple does not actually say that. Simply put, virtual particles are called virtual for a reason: They arent real. And no one, anywhere, in science really would consider them to *be* real. Its more like a useful tool than a real occurence, the same way a ruler isnt actually measuring a physical entity called "Inch", but is actually an intermediary to allow us to act upon our enviornment in a meaningful way. It would be like expecting to find inch-square chunks of reality any time you measured it out. But that just doesnt happen.
Suppose that we are trying to calculate the probability (or, actually, the probability amplitude) that some amount of momentum, p, gets transferred between a couple of particles that are fairly well- localized. The uncertainty principle says that definite momentum is associated with a huge uncertainty in position. A virtual particle with momentum p corresponds to a plane wave filling all of space, with no definite position at all. It doesn't matter which way the momentum points; that just determines how the wavefronts are oriented. Since the wave is everywhere, the photon can be created by one particle and absorbed by the other, no matter where they are. If the momentum transferred by the wave points in the direction from the receiving particle to the emitting one, the effect is that of an attractive force.
The moral is that the lines in a Feynman diagram are not to be interpreted literally as the paths of classical particles. Usually, in fact, this interpretation applies to an even lesser extent than in my example, since in most Feynman diagrams the incoming and outgoing particles are not very well localized; they're supposed to be plane waves too.
The uncertainty principle opens up the possibility that a virtual photon could impart a momentum that corresponds to an attractive force as well as to a repulsive one. But you may well ask what makes the force repulsive for like charges and attractive for opposite charges! Does the virtual photon know what kind of particle it's going to hit?
It's hard even for particle physicists to see this using the Feynman diagram rules of QED, because they're usually formulated in a manner designed to answer a completely different question: that of the probability of particles in plane-wave states scattering off of each other at various angles. Here, though, we want to understand what nudges a couple of particles that are just sitting around some distance apart—to explain the experiment you may have done in high school, in which charged balls of aluminum foil repel each other when hanging from strings. We want to do this using virtual particles. It can be done.
Waterdeep 19:06, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
Neutrinos and the theory of relativity
The first line of the article reads: The theory of relativity has been repeatedly contradicted by experiments, such as observation of neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light.
That sentence is wrong. A more accurate sentence would be as follows: The theory of relativity has been repeatedly confirmed by experiments although recently an experiment involving neutrinos raised questions about the speed of light barrier that the theory predicts.
Many, many experiments involving particle accelerators have confirmed aspects of the theory over many years. Accordingly, the introductory sentence is just plain wrong. I have not just gone and changed it because I am aware that the theory is a particular hobby-horse of the site owner. However, if the site wants to remain a useful source of information this article needs to change to reflect scientific reality.
If anyone wants to discuss this issue before I begin editing, I invite you to do so. --Virgil 17:24, 26 November 2011 (EST)
lack of sufficient footnoting in the article plus the issue of the validity of the theory
If memory serves, Andy's brother, Roger Schlafly, claimed that there was a claim or that there were claims made in this article which were not footnoted/sourced. The Conservapedia commandments declare you must declare your sources. The theory of relativity article is poorly footnoted in my estimation.
Second, although I received above average grades in my past physics schooling, I don't pretend to be a physics expert. I do know that none of the major Christian creationist organizations who oppose evolution oppose the theory of relativity and I have been told by a scientists I respect that atomic clocks use the theory of relativity.
When I combine all these aforementioned matters, I have doubts that theory of relativity is false as a whole, although the recent neutrino experiments may show it is likely false in part. Given the amount of time I have to spend learning other matters, I really don't have the inclination to explore the ramifications of the speed of neutrinos possibly exceeding the speed of light and its bearing on the theory of relativity.
Next, I really don't see the bearing of the speed of light on morality. That sounds to me like saying if the earth is not the exact center of the universe, that means that God does not care about humanity but cares about the sun or other celestial body more. Conservative 20:00, 2 December 2011 (EST)
Lastly, as far as the action at a distance issue, there is no reason why God cannot not perform actions faster than the speed of light given His ability to do the miraculous, His omnipresence, His omnipotence and the fact He is the creator of time itself. Conservative 20:23, 2 December 2011 (EST)
I've added a section on paradoxes as part of the process of tidying up another article, and so have included the three that were mentioned there. However, I'm at a loss to understand "Force Perpendicular to Direction of Motion" issue. Thus I would be very pleased - for my own benefit as well as for the completeness of the article - for a reference or explanation.
What I really don't get is that Special Relativity relates to the physics of objects travelling at different relative velocities, and to the differences they observe, particularly in regard to themselves and each other. The problem is that a force doesn't have a velocity, so the concept of relativistic effects based around the relative velocity of the force and an object is meaningless. Certainly the effect of the force will be perceived differently by an observer riding on the moving object and one in a different inertial frame, but that's nothing to do with the direction of the force.
Moreover, it has to be said that the physics of forces lateral to high speed objects has been very closely studied. It is precisely what goes on inside both the cyclotron and the synchrotron, and indeed it is the relativistic effects on particles in the cyclotron that causes the device not to work at high energies, hence its replacement by the synchrotron (and various other accelerators).
But to summarize - any expansion on the nature of this anomaly would be greatly appreciated. --QPR 11:22, 4 December 2011 (EST)