Changes

#:The cited article says absolutely nothing about the ''number'' of black holes, modeled or observed.  It is about a discrepancy between computer models predicting the ''masses'' of black holes at the centers of galaxies and the observed masses.  The article suggests a heretofore-unmodeled mechanism whereby galaxy evolution would cause less mass to go into the black holes.  The article in no way suggests that black holes don't exist.

#:The cited article says absolutely nothing about the ''number'' of black holes, modeled or observed.  It is about a discrepancy between computer models predicting the ''masses'' of black holes at the centers of galaxies and the observed masses.  The article suggests a heretofore-unmodeled mechanism whereby galaxy evolution would cause less mass to go into the black holes.  The article in no way suggests that black holes don't exist.

#''Quasars are disappearing, contrary to the theory of relativity''.

#''Quasars are disappearing, contrary to the theory of relativity''.

#:Relativity does not predict quasars; relativity was formulated in 1905, and quasars weren't discovered until the 1950's.  The word "relativity" does not occur anywhere in the cited article.

#:Relativity does not predict quasars; relativity was formulated in 1905, and quasars weren't discovered until the 1950s.  The word "relativity" does not occur anywhere in the cited article.

#:While quasars are associated with black holes, no serious scientist believes that black holes don't exist or that relativity is wrong.

#:While quasars are associated with black holes, no serious scientist believes that black holes don't exist or that relativity is wrong.

#:That astronomers have stopped looking for this phenomenon, after finding more than 10 examples of it, may or may not have been a wise decision regarding the allocation of telescope and satellite time.

#:That astronomers have stopped looking for this phenomenon, after finding more than 10 examples of it, may or may not have been a wise decision regarding the allocation of telescope and satellite time.

#::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 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 [[Albert Einstein|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 1970s 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 [[Albert Einstein|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.

#::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)

#::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)

#::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)  

#::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)  

#::: [Source:  [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijpers 2008]]

#::: [Source:  [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijpers 2008]

#:These error bars, and that of the relativity formula, all overlap.

#:These error bars, and that of the relativity formula, all overlap.

#:The formula for mechanics under general relativity is complicated, but it is not contrived or conformed.  "Conformed" suggests that it was somehow adjusted or "tweaked" to match the 42.98 figure.  The formula is

#:The formula for mechanics under general relativity is complicated, but it is not contrived or conformed.  "Conformed" suggests that it was somehow adjusted or "tweaked" to match the 42.98 figure.  The formula is

#:Please read the cited article.  It indicates that, based on observations by the Planck satellite, it should be possible to make a cleaner observation.  The balloon-borne "Spider" telescope is slated to be launched later this year, and it might be successful.

#:Please read the cited article.  It indicates that, based on observations by the Planck satellite, it should be possible to make a cleaner observation.  The balloon-borne "Spider" telescope is slated to be launched later this year, and it might be successful.

#:Taking the failure of the BICEP2 observations as a counterexample to relativity is like saying "I thought of a new and clever proof of the existence of God last week, but unfortunately there was a flaw in my logic, so therefore God doesn't exist."

#:Taking the failure of the BICEP2 observations as a counterexample to relativity is like saying "I thought of a new and clever proof of the existence of God last week, but unfortunately there was a flaw in my logic, so therefore God doesn't exist."

#:In any case, another indirect observation of gravitational waves has already been made, in the Hulse-Taylor observations of binary pulsar [[PSR B1913 16]] in the 1990's.

#:In any case, another indirect observation of gravitational waves has already been made, in the Hulse-Taylor observations of binary pulsar [[PSR B1913 16]] in the 1990s.

Unless someone can come up with a sensible example, we will not be posting further rebuttals.  The recent ones have been hideously pointless, and not worth replying to.  Many of them have cited articles that have ''nothing to do with relativity''.  Tides do not disprove relativity.  It's possible that, because of the rather famous nature of the "counterexamples" page (it is cited around the world, and has nearly 2 million web views), people are simply putting in parody, or trolling, or humor, or whatever, in an attempt to see their work on a world-famous page.

Unless someone can come up with a sensible example, we will not be posting further rebuttals.  The recent ones have been hideously pointless, and not worth replying to.  Many of them have cited articles that have ''nothing to do with relativity''.  Tides do not disprove relativity.  It's possible that, because of the rather famous nature of the "counterexamples" page (it is cited around the world, and has nearly 2 million web views), people are simply putting in parody, or trolling, or humor, or whatever, in an attempt to see their work on a world-famous page.