SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 289:
Line 289: + + + + + + + + + − +
Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 18:18, February 6, 2020
, 18:18, February 6, 2020Counterexample 51.
#: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.
#: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.
#: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.
#''The theory of relativity has discontinuities whereby the limit of a physical quantity ...''
#:The formulas connecting momentum, velocity, and mass, are well known, and can be found in any high school or college level textbook on the subject.
#:It is a well-known fact that, by tweaking the order in which various quantities are held constant are allowed to change, one can get different results. For example, this phenomenon is the essence of the difference between "pointwise continuity" and "uniform continuity" in mathematical analysis.
#:The formula connecting mass, speed, and momentum is, in all cases without exception:
#:::<math>p^2 (c^2-v^2) =m^2c^2v^2</math>
#:While this formula is not a very useful way of expressing it for practical use, and there are many other equivalent expressions that one will see in the literature and here at Conservapdia, it has the advantage that there are no fractions and no square roots.
#:If one specializes that formula in certain ways, one can get asymptotes and other situations in which a limit of finite quantities is infinity, or other discontinuous phenomena occur. This is all covered in elementary calculus courses. In the example on the other page, the quantity of interest is the limit of p as m approaches 0 and v approaches c. This is a limit across a 2-dimensional space, which is a prime example of how one can get different results depending on how the two variables are made to approach their limit. The version of the formula in this case is:
#:::<math>p = \frac{mcv}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}}</math>
#:Note that, expressed in this form, the numerator goes to zero because m goes to zero, and the denominator goes to zero because v goes to c. This sort of thing is a dead giveaway that some mathematical trickery is going to be invoked.
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''. For example, 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.
== See also ==
== See also ==