Changes

#The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.

#The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.

#The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?

#The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?

#The observed lack of curvature in overall space.<ref>If space were curved, one would never expect the universe as a whole to be almost precisely flat.  Yet it is.</ref>   

#The observed lack of curvature in overall space.<ref>If space were curved, one would never expect the universe as a whole to be almost precisely flat.  Yet it is.</ref>  Because space-time is a geometrical construct.

#The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.

#The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.But after some time,the Universe started to behave as it does today,so it is possible to describe it by GR.

#The [[action-at-a-distance]] of [[quantum entanglement]].<ref>Quantum entanglement has not yet communicated information faster than the speed of light, but has already exhibited action faster than the speed of light.</ref>

#The [[action-at-a-distance]] of [[quantum entanglement]].<ref>Quantum entanglement has not yet communicated information faster than the speed of light, but has already exhibited action faster than the speed of light.</ref>It is not necessarily like this.

#The [[action-at-a-distance]] by Jesus, described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]].It should be noted however that this claim is not possible to test,therefore is not scientific.

#The [[action-at-a-distance]] by Jesus, described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]].It should be noted however that this claim is not possible to test,therefore is not scientific.

#The failure to discover [[gravitons]], despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.

#The failure to discover [[gravitons]], despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.Gravitons weren't part of the GR or SR,but in fact,were an attempt to correct Quantum Mechanics so it could explain gravity.Therefore,this should be,in any case,in the Quantum Mechanics article.Also,it is better to spend in science,than in say,war.And in the process kill thousands of people.

#Newly observed data reveal that a fundamental constant of physics, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do '''not''' experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity.<ref>For a report on the data, see a paper submitted in 2010 by John Webb and Julian King of the University of new South Wales, Australia, to the ''Physical Review Letters''.</ref>

#Newly observed data reveal that a fundamental constant of physics, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do '''not''' experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity.<ref>For a report on the data, see a paper submitted in 2010 by John Webb and Julian King of the University of new South Wales, Australia, to the ''Physical Review Letters''.This has yet to be confirmed;the measures weren't what anybody would call "good",let alone "precise"</ref>

#The double star "W13", which weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a [[black hole]].  So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."<ref>http://www.economist.com/node/17035953</ref>

#The double star "W13", which weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a [[black hole]].  So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."Black holes are a result of high density,not high mass ( although these two are highly correlated.)<ref>http://www.economist.com/node/17035953</ref>

#The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

#The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.This is plain wrong.If anybody can come with actual evidence disproving completely General Relativity,or Special Relativity,then it will be replaced by a working theory

#The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.<ref>[[Mystery:Why Is the Kilogram Losing Weight?]]</ref>

#The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.It has nothing to do with General or Special Relativity<ref>[[Mystery:Why Is the Kilogram Losing Weight?]]</ref>

#The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html ("A varying speed of light contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity, and would undermine much of traditional physics. But some physicists believe it would elegantly explain puzzling cosmological phenomena such as the nearly uniform temperature of the universe.")</ref>

#The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html ("A varying speed of light contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity, and would undermine much of traditional physics. But some physicists believe it would elegantly explain puzzling cosmological phenomena such as the nearly uniform temperature of the universe.")If c varied,then we would take the new c as reference.</ref>

#"According to Einstein’s view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out. Hunt for gravitational waves discovers unexpected data instead].</ref>

#"According to Einstein’s view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out. Hunt for gravitational waves discovers unexpected data instead].</ref>

#"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel."<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space</ref>

#"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel."<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space</ref>

#The theory predicts [[wormholes]] just as it predicts [[black holes]], but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.<ref>http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/i13/p1446_1 .  The popular science press promotes black holes to a far greater extent than wormholes.</ref>

#The theory predicts [[wormholes]] just as it predicts [[black holes]], but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.

We have not yet observed any,but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.Wormholes could exist in small enough scales,at a sub atomic scale,therefore their effects would be very hard to perceive.<ref>http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/i13/p1446_1 .  The popular science press promotes black holes to a far greater extent than wormholes.</ref>

#The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in [[entropy]] required by the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]].<ref>Contrived explanations have been suggested for this dilemma, such as Stephen Hawking proposing that the entropy of matter in a black hole is somehow stored in the surface area of its event horizon to be released back into its surroundings as the black hole decays by radiation, known as "Hawking radiation."</ref>

#The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in [[entropy]] required by the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]].<ref>Contrived explanations have been suggested for this dilemma, such as Stephen Hawking proposing that the entropy of matter in a black hole is somehow stored in the surface area of its event horizon to be released back into its surroundings as the black hole decays by radiation, known as "Hawking radiation."</ref>

#Data from the [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] increasingly diverge from predictions of the [[General Theory of Relativity]] such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.

#Data from the [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] increasingly diverge from predictions of the [[General Theory of Relativity]] such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.

#The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.<ref>Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity.  The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”</ref>  This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.

#The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.<ref>Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity.  The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”</ref>  This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science

#Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction.  This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.

#Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction.  This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.

#Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero.  But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

#Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero.  But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.Photons can have p=/=0,which depends on the wavelength of the photon,given by the formula p=h/wavelength,where p is the momentum and h is the Planck Constant.

#Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field.  Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.<ref>In defense of the theory, it is noted that it mandates conservation of the matter-stress-energy tensor (the only way to get ''real'' conservation, since matter and energy are interchangeable.)  This follows from the "contracted Bianchi identity".  [http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap6/node14.html]  Also, the curl of the "gravitational field vector" is exactly zero in the absence of moving sources, due to symmetries of [[Riemann]]'s tensor.  It follows, from [[Stokes' Theorem]], that the gravitational field is conservative and has a potential function.  Energy is conserved.</ref>

#Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field.  Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.<ref>In defense of the theory, it is noted that it mandates conservation of the matter-stress-energy tensor (the only way to get ''real'' conservation, since matter and energy are interchangeable.)  This follows from the "contracted Bianchi identity".  [http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap6/node14.html]  Also, the curl of the "gravitational field vector" is exactly zero in the absence of moving sources, due to symmetries of [[Riemann]]'s tensor.  It follows, from [[Stokes' Theorem]], that the gravitational field is conservative and has a potential function.  Energy is conserved.</ref>

#The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (<math>2 \pi R</math>) is length-contracted. However, since <math>R</math> is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal <math>R</math>, or is it less than <math>R</math>?

#The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (<math>2 \pi R</math>) is length-contracted. However, since <math>R</math> is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal <math>R</math>, or is it less than <math>R</math>?

#[[Minkowski space]] is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is [[time]].  However, one of the properties of a [[vector space]] is that every vector have an inverse.  Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.

#[[Minkowski space]] is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is [[time]].  However, one of the properties of a [[vector space]] is that every vector have an inverse.  Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.

#It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct.  Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].

#It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct.  Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].

#In [[Genesis (ch.1)|Genesis 1:6-8]], we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens.  This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous [[aether]].

#In [[Genesis (ch.1)|Genesis 1:6-8]], we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens.  This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous [[aether]].But aether has been searched for ages,and there have been no positive results in any experiment.

#Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."<ref>[http://www.mathunion.org/o/General/Prizes/2006/TaoENG.pdf Statement in awarding the coveted Fields Medal]</ref>

#Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."<ref>[http://www.mathunion.org/o/General/Prizes/2006/TaoENG.pdf Statement in awarding the coveted Fields Medal]</ref>

#The barn and ladder paradox: Person A has a ladder too long to store in his barn. Person B takes the ladder and runs very fast into the barn. For A, who is at rest with respect to the ladder, the ladder will contract, and if the velocity is fast enough, it will fit in the barn. But to B, who is moving with the ladder, it is the barn that will contract, making the problem even worse. So, who is correct? Does the ladder fit in the barn? This problem was considered in the book Introduction to Electrodynamics by David Griffiths, and the author, who supports Relativity, claim that both are correct. The ladder both fit and doesn’t fit in the barn. This is obviously against elementary rules of logic.

#The barn and ladder paradox: Person A has a ladder too long to store in his barn. Person B takes the ladder and runs very fast into the barn. For A, who is at rest with respect to the ladder, the ladder will contract, and if the velocity is fast enough, it will fit in the barn. But to B, who is moving with the ladder, it is the barn that will contract, making the problem even worse. So, who is correct? Does the ladder fit in the barn? This problem was considered in the book Introduction to Electrodynamics by David Griffiths, and the author, who supports Relativity, claim that both are correct. The ladder both fit and doesn’t fit in the barn. This is obviously against elementary rules of logic.