| Line 1,229: |
Line 1,229: |
| | ==Refutations & Edits== | | ==Refutations & Edits== |
| | The following are refutations of points made in the article by user Gresavage, and is meant for article improvement. Discuss one at a time. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT) | | The following are refutations of points made in the article by user Gresavage, and is meant for article improvement. Discuss one at a time. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | I intersperse my rebuttals below: |
| | | | |
| | #Header:Theory of relativity: A set of mathematical relations showing that mass and energy come from equivalent space curvatures that can appear differently in different observational situations. NOT "a mathematical system that allows no exception". The statement is ambiguous and false. Requires rewording Citation: http://www.ccel.us/gange.glossary.html; http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory%20of%20relativity. | | #Header:Theory of relativity: A set of mathematical relations showing that mass and energy come from equivalent space curvatures that can appear differently in different observational situations. NOT "a mathematical system that allows no exception". The statement is ambiguous and false. Requires rewording Citation: http://www.ccel.us/gange.glossary.html; http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory%20of%20relativity. |
| | + | |
| | + | :No explanation requires no rebuttal. There are no exceptions to mathematical truths, such as 2+2=4. If one exception is found, then the mathematical statement is disproved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | #Header:"It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."|This talks about social relativism and is thereby irrelevant. Furthermore, the assertion that it is heavily promoted by liberals is not cited. You would require that there be some study showing that a tenant of liberalism is to promote the theory of relativity. Should be removed. Citation: No citation needed → irrelevant. | | #Header:"It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."|This talks about social relativism and is thereby irrelevant. Furthermore, the assertion that it is heavily promoted by liberals is not cited. You would require that there be some study showing that a tenant of liberalism is to promote the theory of relativity. Should be removed. Citation: No citation needed → irrelevant. |
| | + | |
| | + | :Self-evident statements hardly require a citation. But see Tribe's law review article, which he credits the president for supposedly helping with it, for one example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | #Header: "any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.". Does this mean that only examples that fully falsify relativity be included? If so the list should be revised. | | #Header: "any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.". Does this mean that only examples that fully falsify relativity be included? If so the list should be revised. |
| | + | |
| | + | :Your statement seems to have a grammatical error and I can't make sense of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | # Counterexample 1: This is not a counterexample of relativity and "sounds like global warming?" is pejorative speculation. it is furthermore false. gravitational waves have been indirectly detected. Should be removed. Citation: http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:147982:1/component/escidoc:147981/AdvSR-43-1049.pdf | | # Counterexample 1: This is not a counterexample of relativity and "sounds like global warming?" is pejorative speculation. it is furthermore false. gravitational waves have been indirectly detected. Should be removed. Citation: http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:147982:1/component/escidoc:147981/AdvSR-43-1049.pdf |
| | + | |
| | + | :No, gravitational waves have not been detected in a meaningful way. Every search for them has been a failure, and a waste of money.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | # Counterexample 4: "If you please, Mark, try quoting the actual scientific journal instead of the New York Times. Wikipedia is also not a source. Karajou 21:31, 5 May 2011 (EDT)" if the new york times is not a source (which it is not) then neither is msnbc. Please recite! | | # Counterexample 4: "If you please, Mark, try quoting the actual scientific journal instead of the New York Times. Wikipedia is also not a source. Karajou 21:31, 5 May 2011 (EDT)" if the new york times is not a source (which it is not) then neither is msnbc. Please recite! |
| | + | |
| | + | :Not sure what the point of the objection is here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | # Counterexample 5: This is not a citation. Requires recitation | | # Counterexample 5: This is not a citation. Requires recitation |
| | # Counterexample 5: this is not true. Citation: http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i1_en/; http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/grel.html; http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1811v1. | | # Counterexample 5: this is not true. Citation: http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i1_en/; http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/grel.html; http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1811v1. |
| | + | |
| | + | : No explanation requires no rebuttal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | # Counterexample 6: This is clearly falsified by NgSmith and Toph in the talk forums. Citation: http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity#Counterexample_4_.28limiting_behavior.29 | | # Counterexample 6: This is clearly falsified by NgSmith and Toph in the talk forums. Citation: http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity#Counterexample_4_.28limiting_behavior.29 |
| | + | |
| | + | : No explanation requires no rebuttal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | # Counterexample 7: Falsified by NgSmith. Citation http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html; http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity#Point_4 | | # Counterexample 7: Falsified by NgSmith. Citation http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html; http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity#Point_4 |
| | + | |
| | + | : No explanation requires no rebuttal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | # Counterexample 8: It is common knowledge that general relativity incorporates a "flat universe". Citation: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm | | # Counterexample 8: It is common knowledge that general relativity incorporates a "flat universe". Citation: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm |
| | + | |
| | + | : Does relativity incorporate Newtonian mechanics also??? A flat universe is contrary to the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | # Counterexample 9: General relativity is to Quantum mechanics as Force equations without friction are to ones that consider friction. However, i can not find valid enough sources to edit this counterexample. | | # Counterexample 9: General relativity is to Quantum mechanics as Force equations without friction are to ones that consider friction. However, i can not find valid enough sources to edit this counterexample. |
| | + | |
| | + | :No; [[quantum mechanics]] confounds and disproves relativity, as in the [[action-at-a-distance]] that exists in QM but is denied by relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | # Counterexample 10: (action at a distance) entirely false. Citation: http://books.google.com/books?id=mbUGZYzs878C&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=relativity+action+at+a+distance&source=bl&ots=Sp3i4fEcfB&sig=T10swXL7u39VubURAXKuY1U66_Q&hl=en&ei=y1LKTbmnKIK_gQf7k_iDBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=relativity%20action%20at%20a%20distance&f=false | | # Counterexample 10: (action at a distance) entirely false. Citation: http://books.google.com/books?id=mbUGZYzs878C&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=relativity+action+at+a+distance&source=bl&ots=Sp3i4fEcfB&sig=T10swXL7u39VubURAXKuY1U66_Q&hl=en&ei=y1LKTbmnKIK_gQf7k_iDBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=relativity%20action%20at%20a%20distance&f=false |
| | + | |
| | + | : No explanation requires no rebuttal. OK, this is getting tiresome. Please explain your very best points and we can discuss them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | #Counterexample 12: gravitons are not part of general relativity this is general knowledge. Citation: http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0322023.htm | | #Counterexample 12: gravitons are not part of general relativity this is general knowledge. Citation: http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0322023.htm |
| | #Counterexample 14: (W13) This is possible in general relativity. Furthermore, solely because one scientist can't explain it, does not mean it is not explainable, in fact someone did provide an explanation. Citation: http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1008/20magnetar/ | | #Counterexample 14: (W13) This is possible in general relativity. Furthermore, solely because one scientist can't explain it, does not mean it is not explainable, in fact someone did provide an explanation. Citation: http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1008/20magnetar/ |