Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, rollback
7,537
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 230:
Line 230: − #''General Relativity predicts how the gravitational fields of the Sun and Moon generate ocean tides. However, in the summer of 2009, tides along the East Coast of the United States were higher than expected.'' − #:This one is utterly absurd. The calculation of the gravity of the Sun and Moon in producing tides has been known for hundreds of years, explained by Newtonian gravity. The effect of relativity on this is microscopic. − #: − #:The cited article is about the many things affecting the gross behavior of tides. Keep in mind that the factors affecting the tides involve a lot of hard-to-precisely-quantify things such as wind and ocean currents, and the melting of glaciers. As an example of how imprecise things are, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans differ in mean height by about 8 inches at the Panama Canal, and the tides are about 20 feet on the Pacific side and 1 foot on the Atlantic side. As another example, tides in the Bay of Fundy are as high as 53 feet. Tides are not a simple calculation from Newtonian or Einsteinian mechanics. The difference between Newtonian gravitation and Einsteinian gravitation is utterly insignificant in comparison to these gross effects. − #''The supermassive black hole within the Andromeda galaxy puzzled researchers by increasing in brightness by a factor of 100 in 2006.'' − #:This item is about unexpected behavior of the supermassive black holes at the centers of many galaxies. Black holes are a prediction of relativity. The fact that people are still learning new things about them is hardly surprising. − #: − #:The cited article never mentions relativity or the possibility that relativity is wrong. In fact, the entire discussion is in the context of black holes. The second study was about a black hole at the center of a galaxy apparently wandering out of place. The hypothesis is that a merger of two galaxies was involved, and "the theoretical prediction is that when two black holes merge, the newly combined black hole receives a 'kick' due to the emission of gravitational waves ..." Gravitational waves are, of course, a specific prediction of general relativity. − #''Apparently, the equations of General Relativity do not apply to the motions of extra-solar planets.'' − #:This refers to a recently discovered planetary system in which another star is closer than had previously been seen in such a system. Systems involving two stars and a planet constitute the "three body problem", which has never been solved analytically. But if only one of the objects is massive, such as the Sun, the system can be stable for all practical purposes, which is why the solar system is effectively stable even though it is a many-body problem. But two stars make the system much more problematical. In the past, such systems have had the other star far enough away that it has essentially no effect. The Gamma Cephei system is different, and scientists are eager to analyze it in detail. They are frustrated in this by the extremely scant data about the planet's orbit, since that information has to be gleaned from tiny spectroscopic shifts (in only one dimension!) of the two stars. − #: − #:The effect of Relativity on this is, of course, the precession of the "perihelion" due to the effects of General Relativity. From the information that has been gathered, the precession should be about 1.14 arcseconds per Earth century, or about 1/37<sup>th</sup> that of Mercury. The precession of Mercury was established with accurate visual observations. Measuring something 1/37<sup>th</sup> as large, from the Doppler shift in spectroscopic measurements, is utterly beyond current technology. Other than that, there is no reason to consider relativity. Classical mechanics will do just fine. − #''General Relativity fails to predict the Allais Effect.'' − #:A quick Google search will show that there is no "concerted effort to suppress knowledge about the phenomenon". Tom van Flandern (no darling of those who accept relativity; he has been cited at Conservapedia in the "Lack of evidence for Relativity" section) explains the phenomenon in his 2003 paper [http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v67/i2/e022002 Allais gravity and pendulum effects during solar eclipses explained]: "Here we show that an unusual phenomenon that occurs only during solar eclipses, rapid air mass movement for the bulk of the atmosphere above normal cloud levels, appears to be a sufficient explanation for both the magnitude and behavior of the anomaly previously reported in these pages." − #:The fact that "attempts to duplicate the result have been reported as failures" is certainly consistent with an effort to suppress knowledge, but it's also consistent with the effect not existing.
Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 17:22, December 16, 2014
, 17:22, December 16, 2014no edit summary
#''Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.''
#''Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.''
#:The equations of electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations), and their connection with relativity, are well known. Hundreds of electrodynamics textbooks cover this subject. The equations are correct at all realizable speeds, even relativistic (''near'' the speed of light) speeds. (Maxwell's equations are said to be the only equations from classical physics that did not need to be modified for relativity.) The equations correctly describe the behavior of magnets (this is presumably what was meant by "solenoids"), charges, and electric and magnetic fields, even at speeds near the speed of light. Of course the equations don't work ''at'' the speed of light. The cited article never discussed speeds ''near'' the speed of light, only ''at'' the speed of light. The questioner was rightly taken to task for his physically unrealizable assumption.
#:The equations of electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations), and their connection with relativity, are well known. Hundreds of electrodynamics textbooks cover this subject. The equations are correct at all realizable speeds, even relativistic (''near'' the speed of light) speeds. (Maxwell's equations are said to be the only equations from classical physics that did not need to be modified for relativity.) The equations correctly describe the behavior of magnets (this is presumably what was meant by "solenoids"), charges, and electric and magnetic fields, even at speeds near the speed of light. Of course the equations don't work ''at'' the speed of light. The cited article never discussed speeds ''near'' the speed of light, only ''at'' the speed of light. The questioner was rightly taken to task for his physically unrealizable assumption.
#''The Pauli Exclusion Principle states that no two electrons...''
#''The Pauli Exclusion Principle states that no two electrons...''
#:This is wrong on many levels. If there were exactly as many quantum-mechanical states (eigenfunctions) as there are particles, then, indeed, a fermion particle could only go to another state if the particle already in that state moved. But there are many more available states than there are particles.
#:This is wrong on many levels. If there were exactly as many quantum-mechanical states (eigenfunctions) as there are particles, then, indeed, a fermion particle could only go to another state if the particle already in that state moved. But there are many more available states than there are particles.