Changes

== Reply to Andrew Schlafly ==

== Reply to Andrew Schlafly ==

1.) :Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''.   

*1.) :Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''.   

The same relativistic mass is not observed in the reference frame orthogonal to the motion. However the total velocity between two objects can be calculated using the Pythagorean theorem in all 3 directions. This is the velocity which is used to calculate relativistic mass and other Lorentz transformations.

The same relativistic mass is not observed in the reference frame orthogonal to the motion. However the total velocity between two objects can be calculated using the Pythagorean theorem in all 3 directions. This is the velocity which is used to calculate relativistic mass and other Lorentz transformations.

2.) "By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades."

*2.) "By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades."

Yes because relativistic mass has been OBSERVED for decades.

Yes because relativistic mass has been OBSERVED for decades.

3.) If that's your best argument, then this case is closed.  That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.

*3.) If that's your best argument, then this case is closed.  That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.

If the light had been traveling at different velocities as the Earth orbited the sun why then did I not see different interference patterns? In the experiment I indirectly observed the speed of light to be the same regardless of reference frame.

If the light had been traveling at different velocities as the Earth orbited the sun why then did I not see different interference patterns? In the experiment I indirectly observed the speed of light to be the same regardless of reference frame.  

4.)What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.   

 

*4.)What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.   

Hmm, ok so there is another theory out there that explains why time slows down with respect to another reference frame, that is not relativity? I would very much like to hear about this theory.

Hmm, ok so there is another theory out there that explains why time slows down with respect to another reference frame, that is not relativity? I would very much like to hear about this theory.

5.)Do you?

*5.)Do you?

Yes I've read the Bible. And I find it insulting that you would assume otherwise.

Yes I've read the Bible. And I find it insulting that you would assume otherwise.

6.) You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible.  Why is that?   

*6.) You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible.  Why is that?   

Well are you going to tell me what this supposed contradiction is? I looked at the conservative words essay and I found "non-local" there. In the definition I found a reference to Jesus healing the sick kid from far away. If you mean to tell me that this violated relativity then you are wrong. First of all, such an action could have occurred at the speed of light and would have allowed for the kid to get better before his father returned home. Secondly Jesus being omnipotent has access to Hilbert space and therefore could operate outside of space-time.

Well are you going to tell me what this supposed contradiction is? I looked at the conservative words essay and I found "non-local" there. In the definition I found a reference to Jesus healing the sick kid from far away. If you mean to tell me that this violated relativity then you are wrong. First of all, such an action could have occurred at the speed of light and would have allowed for the kid to get better before his father returned home. Secondly Jesus being omnipotent has access to Hilbert space and therefore could operate outside of space-time.

7.)The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.

*7.)The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.

You clearly do not know my physics dept. then. Of all the science depts. this one has the highest number of Christians and conservatives than any of the others. In fact many of my friends (the same ones who study relativity) would read the Bible in the physics lounge. (and this was not isolated to the undergrads)

You clearly do not know my physics dept. then. Of all the science depts. this one has the highest number of Christians and conservatives than any of the others. In fact many of my friends (the same ones who study relativity) would read the Bible in the physics lounge. (and this was not isolated to the undergrads)

8.)Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable.

*8.)Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable.

That's not what I was asking. I was asking how one theory -relativity(independent of who believes it) is comparable to another -AGW (independent of those who believe it)

That's not what I was asking. I was asking how one theory -relativity(independent of who believes it) is comparable to another -AGW (independent of those who believe it)

9.)Really?  So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray?  I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it.

*9.)Really?  So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray?  I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it.

Try me! You bet wrong. Prayer in schools is very good for the salutory effect it has on society. Read Irving Kristol.

Try me! You bet wrong. Prayer in schools is very good for the salutory effect it has on society. Read Irving Kristol.

10.)Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism.  

*10.)Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism.  

Yes that's because the masses are idiots. That's not relativities fault though. It should be noted that Einstein thought that the label of "relativity" for his theory was shoddy and that he wanted a better one. Unfortunately "relativity" stuck and as a result some idiots took it the wrong way. I can not do anything about this, but it does not imply that relativity is wrong.

Yes that's because the masses are idiots. That's not relativities fault though. It should be noted that Einstein thought that the label of "relativity" for his theory was shoddy and that he wanted a better one. Unfortunately "relativity" stuck and as a result some idiots took it the wrong way. I can not do anything about this, but it does not imply that relativity is wrong.

11.):LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons.   

*11.):LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons.   

No gravity waves. Gravitons are far smaller and according to my personal model of quantum gravity do not exist as such. (well technically they "exist" in a sense, but that would be a bad way of thinking about how gravity is quantized)Gravitons are a shoddy way to describe the real phenomenon. Gravity waves are not the same as gravitons though.

No gravity waves. Gravitons are far smaller and according to my personal model of quantum gravity do not exist as such. (well technically they "exist" in a sense, but that would be a bad way of thinking about how gravity is quantized)Gravitons are a shoddy way to describe the real phenomenon. Gravity waves are not the same as gravitons though.

12.)"You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle.   

*12.)"You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle.   

In today's world that level of money is not a boondoggle. Social spending is a boondoggle, cap&trade is a boondoggle, and healthcare is a boondoggle, spending a little money on sciences is not a boondoggle. Look in comparison to other programs this is a pittance. It's like the liberals who complain that NASA is taking up too much money when it is only spending less than 10 bill a year compared to the 100's of billions eaten up by their social programs.

In today's world that level of money is not a boondoggle. Social spending is a boondoggle, cap&trade is a boondoggle, and healthcare is a boondoggle, spending a little money on sciences is not a boondoggle. Look in comparison to other programs this is a pittance. It's like the liberals who complain that NASA is taking up too much money when it is only spending less than 10 bill a year compared to the 100's of billions eaten up by their social programs.

Besides I am a neoconservative and do not have exactly the same philosophy on government programs that other conservatives might. I mostly agree on opposing socialism in government programs, but that isn't the same thing as basic projects for the public good or for the advancement of science.

Besides I am a neoconservative and do not have exactly the same philosophy on government programs that other conservatives might. I mostly agree on opposing socialism in government programs, but that isn't the same thing as basic projects for the public good or for the advancement of science.

13.)"How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do?"   

*13.)"How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do?"   

Fair enough. I believe LIGO accepts donations as well.

Fair enough. I believe LIGO accepts donations as well.

14.)That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe.  Enough said.

*14.)That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe.  Enough said.

Most people would like to revolutionize astronomy with the gravitational equivalent of the telescope wouldn't you agree?

Most people would like to revolutionize astronomy with the gravitational equivalent of the telescope wouldn't you agree?