Changes

::::You needn't be so condescending.  I wasn't saying that it isn't a problem with general relativity, I was just saying that since this is an encyclopedia, relevant information should be included.  Since a proposed solution exists, it should be mentioned, and perhaps debunked if it is flawed.  So you could mention inflation, and then say why it fails to solve the flatness problem. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

::::You needn't be so condescending.  I wasn't saying that it isn't a problem with general relativity, I was just saying that since this is an encyclopedia, relevant information should be included.  Since a proposed solution exists, it should be mentioned, and perhaps debunked if it is flawed.  So you could mention inflation, and then say why it fails to solve the flatness problem. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

::2.  7: is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory.  In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

::2.  7: is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory.  In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.

::::I mean, technically it is false at ''all'' length scales, just like any classical (non-quantum) theory (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwellian electromagnetism, classical statistical mechanics, etc.).  But there exists a range of length scales at which it is extremely accurate, and those are the only ones to which it makes claims having any epistemological value.  There is no discontinuity, it just gets progressively worse as quantum effects become more and more apparent, which occurs at smaller and smaller length scales.  Quantum effects definitely need to be taken into account around the level of a nanometer or so in most systems of interest, so I would say this is about the regime where GR needs to stop being used.  But of course, it depends on the system in question. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

::::I mean, technically it is false at ''all'' length scales, just like any classical (non-quantum) theory (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwellian electromagnetism, classical statistical mechanics, etc.).  But there exists a range of length scales at which it is extremely accurate, and those are the only ones to which it makes claims having any epistemological value.  There is no discontinuity, it just gets progressively worse as quantum effects become more and more apparent, which occurs at smaller and smaller length scales.  Quantum effects definitely need to be taken into account around the level of a nanometer or so in most systems of interest, so I would say this is about the regime where GR needs to stop being used.  But of course, it depends on the system in question. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

::3. 8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer.  Hence special relativity is not violated.

::3. 8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer.  Hence special relativity is not violated.

::::It's not a non sequitur; the problem as I thought it was stated on the page is that special relativity does not allow information transfer faster than the speed of light.  Since quantum entanglement cannot actually transfer information, this does not violate that provision of special relativity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

::::It's not a non sequitur; the problem as I thought it was stated on the page is that special relativity does not allow information transfer faster than the speed of light.  Since quantum entanglement cannot actually transfer information, this does not violate that provision of special relativity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::Will respond to your other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

:::Will respond to your other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your attention to my concerns, and I hope I have adequately outlined them.  Also, I hope I would not be asking too much to request formatting consistency (like adding periods at the ends of nos. 7, 8, and 9).  It would make it look more professional, like other articles I've seen on Conservapedia. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your attention to my concerns, and I hope I have adequately outlined them.  Also, I hope I would not be asking too much to request formatting consistency (like adding periods at the ends of nos. 7, 8, and 9).  It would make it look more professional, like other articles I've seen on Conservapedia. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

== Curavture of Space ==

== Curavture of Space ==

Re [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&curid=97238&diff=766130&oldid=742826 this] edit: I don't disagree, but the example is a bad one. Based on local observations, one would assume that the Earth itself is flat, but it clearly isn't. My own point of view is that since the Universe can never be proved to be one thing or another, it is part of God's own ineffable being - it is almost folly to inquire further. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:24, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

Re [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&curid=97238&diff=766130&oldid=742826 this] edit: I don't disagree, but the example is a bad one. Based on local observations, one would assume that the Earth itself is flat, but it clearly isn't. My own point of view is that since the Universe can never be proved to be one thing or another, it is part of God's own ineffable being - it is almost folly to inquire further. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:24, 30 March 2010 (EDT)