115
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 273:
Line 273: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Theory of relativity (view source)
Revision as of 04:23, November 29, 2009
, 04:23, November 29, 2009→Reply to Andrew Schlafly
:::It's not just an issue in the States; all over the world huge amounts of government (ie taxpayers') money is being spent promoting this theory. Why would governments spend so much on something that turns people away from the Bible? I think we all know the answer to that... [[User:TrondE|TrondE]] 23:08, 27 November 2009 (EST)
:::It's not just an issue in the States; all over the world huge amounts of government (ie taxpayers') money is being spent promoting this theory. Why would governments spend so much on something that turns people away from the Bible? I think we all know the answer to that... [[User:TrondE|TrondE]] 23:08, 27 November 2009 (EST)
:::'''REPLY'''::
*Andy Wrote: "I said there is a force orthogonal to the high velocity that supposedly causes an increase in relativistic mass. Mass is a scalar, not a vector. Does that force have to contend with the relativistic mass as claimed?"
:::Yes.
:::You don't measure only one component of the velocity when you are measuring the relative velocity. You combine them with the Pythagorean theorem. So there is no change in mass when you are in a reference frame orthogonal to the moving object than when you are in a reference frame paralel to it.
*Andy Wrote: Michelson-Morley suggests that an ether does not exist, but it in no way proves the many claims of relativity.
:::Actually it's the basis for the postulate that the c is the same in all reference frames. You wrongly claimed that this was an assumption, but it is based on experimental evidence.
:::If the ether does not exist than "c" does not have a preferred reference frame to be constant in. Thus instead it is constant in all reference frames.
:::To be fair there was a third model "ballistic theory" which suggested that the photons moved at speed c with respect to their emitters, but this was ruled out by observation. It led to several optical effects that were not seen in astronomical photographs, notably in observations of binary stars in which the light from the two stars could be measured in an interferometer. If it were correct, the light from the stars should cause fringe shifting due to the velocity of the stars being added to the speed of the light, but again, no such effect could be seen. The only remaining model was the Lorentzian one.
*Andy Wrote: So you're going to try to plug weaknesses in your argument with a personal put-down? Not here.
:::No, I brought it up because you make several statements in the page which are blatantly erroneous. First of all you argue that relativity is not based on evidence but assumptions, which is simply not true as we are discussing here, then you do not seem to understand why quantum non-locality does not violate relativity, and lastly you ignore the vast experimental evidence in support of it. Most notably the massive time dilation observed in muon particles. I can only guess based on this that you don't have enough background in physics.
*Andy Wrote: "Many read it in their youth. That makes the ''termination of reading the Bible'' by them all the more striking."
Well I was just reading it earlier today and last week as well.
*Andy Wrote: "Once people buy into relativity, they stop reading it. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. That speaks volumes about what relativity really is."
:::That sounds strikingly like the "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. I don't know where you got the idea that reading relativity as opposed to any other theory caused this, but the connection you are implying is absurd and baseless. Where is your statistical evidence that tells you that people who read about relativity as opposed to say plate tectonic theory or germ theory are more likely to not read their Bible's afterwards? This suggestion that there is a connection is simply quite ridiculous.
*Andy wrote: "The healing occurred instantaneously and, yes, that contradicts the assumption in relativity about no information traveling faster than the speed of light. There are no exceptions allowed by relativity. It's a real contradiction. It's a not a "sign" as described by the Bible if it is impossible."
:::It's not a contradiction of relativity if Jesus can operate outside of space-time. Relativity does not say anything about what goes on outside of space-time. You failed to address my suggestion of this possibility though.
*Andy Wrote "Maybe you have 95-year-old pack-a-day cigarette smokers there too, who have never been sick a day in their lives. Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types. Keep in mind that many of the promoters of the phony man-made global warming are physics professors."
:::Look I don't know what personal experiences you had at Harvard, but coming from my dept. these claims are down right bizarre:
::::"Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types."
:::Well I'm denying it for one. Listen, you keep spouting this off, but there is simply no basis for it. Relativists are no more liberal than quantum theorists, particle physicists, or those who study superconductors. I haven't the slightest notion where you got this idea.
*Andy Wrote: "The correlation is unmistakable. Perhaps both attract people who like to misuse science for liberal goals."
:::Andy, part of this whole discussion is WHETHER OR NOT relativity supports a liberal goal NOT IF. To say that the correlation is unmistakable because those who promote relativity are misusing science for liberal goals is begging the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy, and does not resolve anything.
*Andy Wrote: "Do you support classroom prayer then? A clear "yes" would suffice."
:::Ok YES, and FYI I was also homeschooled from 1st grade to 12th, voted for Bush in 04, write conservative editorials for my school paper nearly every week, and run the largest right-wing memetic engineering group on facebook.
*Andy Wrote: "So ... you're fine with promoting something that is misleading the "masses" and harming their lives, as long as you can say it is their fault, not yours."
:::1.)Ok look, first of all relativISM appeared for reasons entirely different than relativITY. Supporters of relativISM seized upon relativITY to lend credence to their view. However, relativism would both exist and flourish WITHOUT relativity. The relativism in today's society is not caused by relativity. Relativity is merely incidental to relativism.
:::2.) Secondly, just because something can cause people to go to a wrong conclusion does not make that thing wrong. Relativism is a wrong conclusion. Relativity in my theory is a right premise. Just because some people use a non sequiter argument to jump from one to the other does not make relativity wrong. You have to understand that relativity is true or false INDEPENDENT of whether or not it causes certain people who are ignorant of relativity to be adherents of moral relativism.
:::3.) With this in mind I will note you might consider certain scientific discoveries as what Leo Strauss would think of as "dangerous truths." There are currently several such theories that if taken the wrong way might tend one towards atheism which in turn could lead to moral relativism. As such I prefer them to be left to the scientific world and not popularized in such a way to undermine moral values, however that does not make them any less true or false. I do not personally think of relativity to be one of these, but if you do that's fine, just remember that just because something might have adverse effects to the untrained mind doesn't make it any less true or false in itself.
*Andy Wrote: "Johanan, I spend my time helping people. Relativity has not helped a single person in any way, ever. It's misled and hurt a lot of people. Relativity is the most unproductive theory ever embraced, and it's a complete dead-end."
:::That's not true. It's led (not misled) people to make great advances in astronomy, and it HAS been productive in keeping particle's alive in particle accelerators for far longer than would normally be allowed. Furthermore it is useful in keeping GPS satellites on time when they start to slip off by a few seconds every year: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html GPS recievers calculate for gravitational time dilation to keep on track. Lastly you can't tell me that this if it works will not be both very cool and very useful: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/timetravel-01a.html
*Andy Wrote: "I'm not going to waste more of my time on it, and I encourage you to open your mind and become more productive yourself."
:::Then explain muon time dilation without relativity. I'm highly skeptical that another explanation exists, but if you can find one by all means share it.
*Andy Wrote:"You don't seem to be much of a conservative either. Conservatives advance society in a productive way. Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite that wastes taxpayer money,
misleads well-intentioned students and pushes the masses toward relativism. Yet you're spending your time defending and promoting it.
:::This is circular reasoning Andy. You start with your conclusion: "Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite" and argue back that therefore I must not be a conservative because conservatives are productive. Remember we are still debating whether or not relativity is productive. You also haven't proved why it misleads well-intentioned students. You can't argue that funding LIGO is liberal because relativity is an unproductive theory and therefore LIGO will be unproductive.
:::In a few years you might be surprised at what LIGO will do. I for one would love a new way to map dark matter. It would be a very nice way to figure out if I am on the right track with my quantum gravity theory for one thing.
*Andy Wrote: "I'm moving on to more productive topics on this site, and hope you can do likewise."
:::Don't worry, I intend to put together and edit many political pages that I think you will like! ;)
[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]
==Request for References==
==Request for References==