Changes

#:::::Scientists' choosing not to try to explain "plausible media" for things described in the Bible is not evidence that Relativity is wrong.

#:::::Scientists' choosing not to try to explain "plausible media" for things described in the Bible is not evidence that Relativity is wrong.

#''The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.''

#''The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.''

#:Gravitons are a prediction of [[Quantum Theory]], not of relativity, although the concept is an extension of the relativistic idea that forces take a finite time to be transmitted over a distance.

#:Gravitons are a prediction of [[Quantum mechanics]], not of relativity, although the concept is an extension of the relativistic idea that forces take a finite time to be transmitted over a distance.

#:No one expects to observe gravitons.  Calculations show that it is well-nigh impossible with any conceivable detector that we could build.  No one is designing, funding, or building any apparatus to search for gravitons.

#:No one expects to observe gravitons.  Calculations show that it is well-nigh impossible with any conceivable detector that we could build.  No one is designing, funding, or building any apparatus to search for gravitons.

#:Now it happens that theoretical physicists discuss and speculate on the existence and nature of such things as gravitons as part of their theoretical work.  Some of these discussions take place among scientists who receive their salaries from various government agencies that are funded by taxpayers.  Whether all of the things that scientists think about, talk about, and write about constitute a good use of money is not for us to say.

#:Now it happens that theoretical physicists discuss and speculate on the existence and nature of such things as gravitons as part of their theoretical work.  Some of these discussions take place among scientists who receive their salaries from various government agencies that are funded by taxpayers.  Whether all of the things that scientists think about, talk about, and write about constitute a good use of money is not for us to say.

#''Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do not experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity''

#''Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do not experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity''

#:Whilst this observation is unconfirmed, if true it would still not invalidate relativity. Many things may vary with position in space, and relativity does not deny this. There is no suggestion that the fine-structure constant is different at the same point in space for observers in different non-inertial frame, as the 'counterexample' implies.

#:Whilst this observation is unconfirmed, if true it would still not invalidate relativity. Many things may vary with position in space, and relativity does not deny this. There is no suggestion that the fine-structure constant is different at the same point in space for observers in different (inertial or non-inertial) frames, as the 'counterexample' implies.

#''The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a black hole. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."''

#''The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a black hole. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."''

#:When physicists encounter something puzzling, their first reaction is usually not to assume that it shows that relativity is wrong.  In fact the cited article never mentions relativity at all.  It is about "magnetars", a type of neutron star about which very little is known, other than their extremely strong magnetic fields.

#:When physicists encounter something puzzling, their first reaction is usually not to assume that it shows that relativity is wrong.  In fact the cited article never mentions relativity at all.  It is about "magnetars", a type of neutron star about which very little is known, other than their extremely strong magnetic fields.