Changes

#::The objection has been raised that this would still be a counterexample to Relativity.

#::The objection has been raised that this would still be a counterexample to Relativity.

#:::Yes, if it were actually true that the Moon's orbit is undergoing some kind of anomalous perturbation, it would indeed be a disproof of Relativity, Newtonian mechanics, and, in fact, all of physics since Galileo.

#:::Yes, if it were actually true that the Moon's orbit is undergoing some kind of anomalous perturbation, it would indeed be a disproof of Relativity, Newtonian mechanics, and, in fact, all of physics since Galileo.

#::::Actually, the average radius of the Moon's orbit is in fact increasing. By 38mm a year. This was first predicted in the late 19th century and actually measured since at least the early 1970's and more accurately thereafter thanks to the mirrors left for that purpose by the Apollo astronauts. The reason for this is well-known and simple enough to be explained on science-oriented TV shows from time to time. To put it simply: the Moon pulls on the Earth causing the tides and slowing down its rotation slightly, lengthening it's day by 2 milliseconds every 100 years. Reciprocally, the Earth pulls on the Moon and accelerates it slightly thus increasing the height of its orbit and energy is conserved. For a more complete explanation see <ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124</ref>. This behavoiur, predicted over 100 years ago, observed and measured, is in no way "anomalous" and relativity, general, special or otherwise doesn't really concern itself with tidal mechanics so on that point at least physics, Galillean, Newtonian and Einsteinian, are quite safe for now.

#::::Actually, the average radius of the Moon's orbit is in fact increasing. By 38mm a year. This was first predicted in the late 19th century and actually measured since at least the early 1970's and more accurately thereafter thanks to the mirrors left for that purpose by the Apollo astronauts. The reason for this is well-known and simple enough to be explained on science-oriented TV shows from time to time. To put it simply: the Moon pulls on the Earth causing the tides and slowing down its rotation slightly, lengthening it's day by 2 milliseconds every 100 years. Reciprocally, the Earth pulls on the Moon and accelerates it slightly thus increasing the height of its orbit and energy is conserved. For a more complete explanation see <ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124</ref>. This behavior, predicted over 100 years ago, observed and measured, is in no way "anomalous" and relativity, general, special or otherwise doesn't really concern itself with tidal mechanics so on that point at least physics, Galilean, Newtonian and Einsteinian, are quite safe for now.

#''The Pioneer anomaly.''

#''The Pioneer anomaly.''

#:The "Pioneer anomaly" is the deviation in the motion of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft from their predicted motion, at the distance of Saturn and beyond.  It should be noted that the anomaly is about 1000 times greater than the difference between the classical Newtonian prediction and the prediction of relativity, so this is not a problem with relativity ''per se''; it is more general than that.

#:The "Pioneer anomaly" is the deviation in the motion of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft from their predicted motion, at the distance of Saturn and beyond.  It should be noted that the anomaly is about 1000 times greater than the difference between the classical Newtonian prediction and the prediction of relativity, so this is not a problem with relativity ''per se''; it is more general than that.

#''Quantum entanglement near the event horizon of a black hole ....''

#''Quantum entanglement near the event horizon of a black hole ....''

#:It is well known that quantum gravity (that is, the "Theory of Everything") is an unsolved problem, and it is the subject of much discussion in the physics community.  The whole topic of string theory, for example, revolves around this.  Among the places where General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics collide most notoriously is within the Planck length of a black hole's event horizon.  Among the issues involved is the notion of "quantum loss of information", that was the subject of a famous bet among Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, and John Preskill.  (Hawking and Thorne lost.)  Basically, physicists do not know just what happens within quantum-mechanical distances (the Planck length) of a black hole.  But no one doubts the behavior of black holes at reasonable distances, or, for that matter, General Relativity at reasonable distances.

#:It is well known that quantum gravity (that is, the "Theory of Everything") is an unsolved problem, and it is the subject of much discussion in the physics community.  The whole topic of string theory, for example, revolves around this.  Among the places where General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics collide most notoriously is within the Planck length of a black hole's event horizon.  Among the issues involved is the notion of "quantum loss of information", that was the subject of a famous bet among Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, and John Preskill.  (Hawking and Thorne lost.)  Basically, physicists do not know just what happens within quantum-mechanical distances (the Planck length) of a black hole.  But no one doubts the behavior of black holes at reasonable distances, or, for that matter, General Relativity at reasonable distances.

#''Celestial signals defy Einstein''.

#''Celestial signals defy Einstein''.

#:It shouldn't be surprising that, when Einstein died nearly 60 years ago, he didn't know ''everything'' that there is to know about spacetime.  Newton didn't know everything there is to know about calculus (Hilbert spaces) or classical mechanics (Lissajous orbits), and Bohr and Schrödinger didn't know everything there is to know about Quantum mechanics (entanglement).  What Einstein knew, at the time, about spacetime was how to give a precisely relativistically correct formula for how matter and energy (and momentum and stress) give curvature to spacetime, which in turn gives rise to gravity.  These equations have been confirmed, with great accuracy, repeatedly.

#:It shouldn't be surprising that, when Einstein died nearly 60 years ago, he didn't know ''everything'' that there is to know about spacetime.  Newton didn't know everything there is to know about calculus (Hilbert spaces) or classical mechanics (Lissajous orbits), and Bohr and Schrödinger didn't know everything there is to know about Quantum mechanics (entanglement).  What Einstein knew, at the time, about spacetime was how to give a precisely relativistically correct formula for how matter and energy (and momentum and stress) give curvature to spacetime, which in turn gives rise to gravity.  These equations have been confirmed, with great accuracy, repeatedly.

#:

#:

#:Einstein's equations are known to work for "ordinary" interactions at the planetary and galactic level, but don't work at the quantum level, and may not be fully correct at the deep cosmic level.  The cited article says "Every object there is, from a planet orbiting the sun to a rocket coasting to the moon or a pencil dropped carelessly on the floor, follows its [spacetime's] imperceptible contours."  This is a confirmation of what Einstein said.  The article says that there may be more subtlety to spacetime than was previously known.  Of course this has been hinted at for some time with recent developments in cosmology.  "Breaking relativity" is an unfortunate choice of subtitle.

#:Einstein's equations are known to work for "ordinary" interactions at the planetary and galactic level, but don't work at the quantum level, and may not be fully correct at the deep cosmic level.  The cited article says "Every object there is, from a planet orbiting the sun to a rocket coasting to the moon or a pencil dropped carelessly on the floor, follows its [spacetime's] imperceptible contours."  This is a confirmation of what Einstein said.  The article says that there may be more subtlety to spacetime than was previously known.  Of course this has been hinted at for some time with recent developments in cosmology.  "Breaking relativity" is an unfortunate choice of subtitle.