SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 278:
Line 278: + + + +
Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 05:26, June 9, 2017
, 05:26, June 9, 2017Another one!
#: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 1990s.
#: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.
#''The theory of relativity ... implausible assumptions, including an invariant speed of light, denial of action at a distance, denial of basic, well-proven principles of quantum mechanics, and insistence that all places in the universe be equivalent to each other.''
#:The invariant speed of light is an observation from the Michelson-Morley experiment. They did not take a position on whether it was "implausible"; they just reported their observations, and the scientific community accepts this, implausible or not. One can't say that something didn't happen because one finds it implausible.
#:All of the scientists working on the well-proven principles of quantum mechanics, ''all of them'', accept relativity. Relativity is built into those principles, such as Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Electrodynamics, and Quantum Chromodynamics. These theories just don't work without relativity, and no one tries to take relativity out of them.
#:We don't quite know what "all places in the universe [are] equivalent to each other" means. No one asserts this in any literal way. Perhaps it is a reference to the laws of physics being the same everywhere, or there being no "origin" of space. Those principles come out of Galilean mechanics, hundreds of years before relativity.
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.