Changes

#:But relativity never said anything about vacuum polarization.

#:But relativity never said anything about vacuum polarization.

#:

#:

#:The factor "c" appearing in equations of relativity (E=mc^2, the Lorentz factor, etc.) is the calibration constant for space vs. time.  While it was perceived as the "speed of light" back in 1905, that depended on the classical theory of light, from Faraday, Maxwell, et. al., at that time.  Under the classical theory, Maxwell's equations were considered to be '''exactly''' correct, and light was considered to travel at '''exactly''' the speed indicated by those equations, which speed is denoted "c".  The speed "c" would be better described as "that speed that all observers, even those in relative motion, will consider to be the same."  The experimental basis for relativity (Michelson-Morley experiment) was that light obeyed that property.  That, plus the fact that "c" appears in Maxwell's equations in a way that makes it independent of an observer's state of motion, made it clear that "c" was in fact the speed of light.  But that depended on the belief that Maxwell's equations were exactly correct.  But that was before Quantum Mechanics and gauge interactions.  Under Quantum Mechanics, the propagation of light is determined by the behavior of photons, not by Maxwell's field equations.  Of course the two results are almost identical, as is required by the Correspondence Principle.  But, under the modern "Standard Model" of Quantum Electrodynamics, photons can interact with the vacuum, due to "vacuum polarization", leading to extremely tiny higher-order corrections to the equations governing the behavior of photons.  This can cause photons to travel at a speed slower than "c".

#:The factor "c" appearing in equations of relativity (E=mc^2, the Lorentz factor, etc.) is the calibration constant for space vs. time.  While it was perceived as the "speed of light" back in 1905, that depended on the classical theory of light, from Faraday, Maxwell, et al., at that time.  Under the classical theory, Maxwell's equations were considered to be '''exactly''' correct, and light was considered to travel at '''exactly''' the speed indicated by those equations, which speed is denoted "c".  The speed "c" would be better described as "that speed that all observers, even those in relative motion, will consider to be the same."  The experimental basis for relativity (Michelson-Morley experiment) was that light obeyed that property.  That, plus the fact that "c" appears in Maxwell's equations in a way that makes it independent of an observer's state of motion, made it clear that "c" was in fact the speed of light.  But that depended on the belief that Maxwell's equations were exactly correct.  But that was before Quantum Mechanics and gauge interactions.  Under Quantum Mechanics, the propagation of light is determined by the behavior of photons, not by Maxwell's field equations.  Of course the two results are almost identical, as is required by the Correspondence Principle.  But, under the modern "Standard Model" of Quantum Electrodynamics, photons can interact with the vacuum, due to "vacuum polarization", leading to extremely tiny higher-order corrections to the equations governing the behavior of photons.  This can cause photons to travel at a speed slower than "c".

#:

#:

#:Now the situation is made more complex by the fact that models of supernova behavior indicate that the light is emitted after the neutrinos, because the neutrinos are emitted at the instant of the core collapse, and the light must wait until the effect of the collapse reaches the surface.  After taking that into account, the cited article says that the extra delay for supernova SN1987A was 4.7 hours.  That discrepancy is only 53 parts per trillion, and hence can only be observed in light from very distant supernovas.

#:Now the situation is made more complex by the fact that models of supernova behavior indicate that the light is emitted after the neutrinos, because the neutrinos are emitted at the instant of the core collapse, and the light must wait until the effect of the collapse reaches the surface.  After taking that into account, the cited article says that the extra delay for supernova SN1987A was 4.7 hours.  That discrepancy is only 53 parts per trillion, and hence can only be observed in light from very distant supernovas.

#:We're still working on a quantum theory of gravity; this isn't so much a counter-example as saying that (classical) GR isn't valid in that domain.  

#:We're still working on a quantum theory of gravity; this isn't so much a counter-example as saying that (classical) GR isn't valid in that domain.  

#''The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.''

#''The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.''

#:Special Relativity only forbids the transmission of matter, energy or information at a speed faster than light. There are plenty of other things that can move faster than light. Consider a laser on Earth which is rotating on a pivot, whose light shines onto the hull of a satellite 200,000Km away (2e8 metres). If the laser rotates at a sedentary one revolution ever four seconds, the speed of the laser beam's tip crossing the satellite's hull is 3.14e8 metres per second - faster than the speed of light. However, this is not a transfer of information. Any information is travelling from Earth to the satellite, obeying the universal speed limit. Similarly, the only information that can be transmitted by the quantum entanglement of two particles is from the originator of the particles to the two observers, not from one observer to another. Faster than light transmission of information using quantum entanglement has never been observed, nor has even conceived how such a mechanism might work.<ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612</ref>

#:Special Relativity only forbids the transmission of matter, energy or information at a speed faster than light. There are plenty of other things that can move faster than light. Consider a laser on Earth which is rotating on a pivot, whose light shines onto the hull of a satellite 200,000&nbsp;km away (2e8 metres). If the laser rotates at a sedentary one revolution ever four seconds, the speed of the laser beam's tip crossing the satellite's hull is 3.14e8 metres per second - faster than the speed of light. However, this is not a transfer of information. Any information is travelling from Earth to the satellite, obeying the universal speed limit. Similarly, the only information that can be transmitted by the quantum entanglement of two particles is from the originator of the particles to the two observers, not from one observer to another. Faster than light transmission of information using quantum entanglement has never been observed, nor has even conceived how such a mechanism might work.<ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612</ref>

#''The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.''

#''The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.''

#:As an argument against relativity, there are two reasons that this is invalid (beyond simply questioning the evidential validity of the Bible):

#:As an argument against relativity, there are two reasons that this is invalid (beyond simply questioning the evidential validity of the Bible):

#:Since the 70's much work has been done on the subject of black hole thermodynamics,<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973CMaPh..31..161B</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9307035v1.pdf</ref> most notably by the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge [[Stephen Hawking]]. When quantum field theory is added to the analysis of black holes it is found that they do not possess "low entropy" (quite the opposite, in fact) and are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...7.2333B</ref> The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article has labelled this work in a footnote as "[c]ontrived explanations", with no explanation for this characterization given.

#:Since the 70's much work has been done on the subject of black hole thermodynamics,<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973CMaPh..31..161B</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9307035v1.pdf</ref> most notably by the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge [[Stephen Hawking]]. When quantum field theory is added to the analysis of black holes it is found that they do not possess "low entropy" (quite the opposite, in fact) and are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...7.2333B</ref> The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article has labelled this work in a footnote as "[c]ontrived explanations", with no explanation for this characterization given.

#''Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.''

#''Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.''

#:Please read the cited paper carefully.  It is a survey of their observations over a 30 year period.  They point out that their data matches general relativity to within 0.2 percent, and is now down in the "noise" of other effects, such as lack of accurate knowledge of just how far away the pulsars are, and lack of accurate knowledge of galactic constants.  As they say in the abstract, "tighter bounds will be difficult to obtain."  The paper, written in 2004, also notes that, because the pulsar beams are slowly tilting out of the line of sight to Earth, "A core component [of the emission] is quite prominent in the data taken in 1980-81, but it faded very significantly between 1980 and 1998 and was nearly gone by 2003."

#:Please read the cited paper carefully.  It is a survey of their observations over a 30-year period.  They point out that their data matches general relativity to within 0.2 percent, and is now down in the "noise" of other effects, such as lack of accurate knowledge of just how far away the pulsars are, and lack of accurate knowledge of galactic constants.  As they say in the abstract, "tighter bounds will be difficult to obtain."  The paper, written in 2004, also notes that, because the pulsar beams are slowly tilting out of the line of sight to Earth, "A core component [of the emission] is quite prominent in the data taken in 1980-81, but it faded very significantly between 1980 and 1998 and was nearly gone by 2003."

#:That is why they are not releasing further data.  30 years is a fairly long time to watch a pair of pulsars.  They're not doing the experiment any more&mdash;it did its job, and it's finished.  No one drops cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa any more either.

#:That is why they are not releasing further data.  30 years is a fairly long time to watch a pair of pulsars.  They're not doing the experiment any more&mdash;it did its job, and it's finished.  No one drops cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa any more either.

#:The data are not diverging from the predictions.

#:The data are not diverging from the predictions.

#''Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.''

#''Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.''

#:The claims of that item are preposterous.  Read the cited paper (or its abstract) carefully.  Einstein's statement that clocks would run slower at the equator, due to time dilation, was correct according to special relativity alone.  What Einstein didn't realize, because he wouldn't discover general relativity for another 10 years, was that the gravitational time shift would offset that.

#:The claims of that item are preposterous.  Read the cited paper (or its abstract) carefully.  Einstein's statement that clocks would run slower at the equator, due to time dilation, was correct according to special relativity alone.  What Einstein didn't realize, because he wouldn't discover general relativity for another 10 years, was that the gravitational time shift would offset that.

#:A "geoid" (the shape dicussed in the paper) is a theoretical shape used in mathematical physics, that is in equilibrium between the effects of centrifugal force (from rotation) and gravity.  It is essentially an oblate spheroid.  It can be thought of as the shape a rotating planet would take if it were completely fluid.  Or it could be thought of as the shape of "global sea level".  Jupiter, because of its rapid rotation, has a very pronounced flattening at the poles.  Since Jupiter is not solid, its shape is a geoid.  The Earth is ''very nearly'' a geoid, of course.  But not exactly, because of gravitational nonuniformities, and things like mountains, that can exist because of the Earth's rigidity.  No one "made new assumptions about the Earth's shape" to justify anything.  The assumption that the Earth's shape is a geoid is a theoretical assumption due to the ''approximately'' fluid nature of the Earth.  But no one claims that the Earth's shape is anything other than what it is observed and measured to be.

#:A "geoid" (the shape discussed in the paper) is a theoretical shape used in mathematical physics, that is in equilibrium between the effects of centrifugal force (from rotation) and gravity.  It is essentially an oblate spheroid.  It can be thought of as the shape a rotating planet would take if it were completely fluid.  Or it could be thought of as the shape of "global sea level".  Jupiter, because of its rapid rotation, has a very pronounced flattening at the poles.  Since Jupiter is not solid, its shape is a geoid.  The Earth is ''very nearly'' a geoid, of course.  But not exactly, because of gravitational nonuniformities, and things like mountains, that can exist because of the Earth's rigidity.  No one "made new assumptions about the Earth's shape" to justify anything.  The assumption that the Earth's shape is a geoid is a theoretical assumption due to the ''approximately'' fluid nature of the Earth.  But no one claims that the Earth's shape is anything other than what it is observed and measured to be.

#:What the paper is about is the fact that the effects of rotational speed and gravitational time dilation happen to cancel each other on an ideal geoid.  So all clocks at "sea level" on an ideal geoid-shaped planet run at the same speed.  Whether this result is implausible is not for us to say.

#:What the paper is about is the fact that the effects of rotational speed and gravitational time dilation happen to cancel each other on an ideal geoid.  So all clocks at "sea level" on an ideal geoid-shaped planet run at the same speed.  Whether this result is implausible is not for us to say.

#:The cited paper does not refute relativity.

#:The cited paper does not refute relativity.