41
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1,235:
Line 1,235: + + + + + + + + + + Line 1,256:
Line 1,266: + + + − + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 00:58, May 12, 2011
, 00:58, May 12, 2011no edit summary
: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)
: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)
::2+2 = 0, 2+2=1, 2+2 = 3 and 2+2=4 are all true. They can not be simultaneously true. Furthermore, truth is relative to the constraints you put on the system in which you are observing. which is why 2+2 = 0, 2+2=1, 2+2 = 3 and 2+2=4 are all true. There are some mathematical expressions that can be violated. Mathematical systems therefore do allow exceptions. And furthermore, when you try to apply GR outside of the scope of the system over which it is defined, it breaks down. It's just like trying to plug in x = 2 to the function <math>f(x)=1/(2-x)</math>. Are you therefore going to say that f(x) must not be true since it is not defined over 2, which is not in it's natural domain? [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 20:58, 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)
: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)
::it's no matter, social relativism ≠ General Relativity. You are trying to imply that they do, which is false by their definitions. FURTHERMORE self evident statements is a nonsensical term. And i would hardly say that that statement is self evident. it is not intuitively obvious that a tenant of liberalism is to believe in either social relativism or general or special relativity. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 20:58, 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)
: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)
::excuse me i mean to imply that (from my recollection) none of the counterexamples tautologically prove GR to be false. I want to know whether this page should include only Counterexamples that can do that, or if we are just going to include insignificant "roadblocks" like the ehrenfest and twin paradoxes, which are easily explained by GR. In fact they are included in entry level courses in GR. No scientist in the last century, who has been well or even slightly versed, in the theory of GR understand these to be true paradoxes, As there is an explicit solution. Simply because one may not be able to comprehend the answer does not mean it's wrong. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 20:58, 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)
: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)
::Indirectly detecting them is not meaningful? many other scientists and i would beg to disagree. The same failures and indirect detection has been instrumental in discovering many of the waves that make up the EM spectrum. IN FACT, indirect detection of EM waves is the reason we know the curvature, and change in temperature of the universe. It is like being inside a boat with no way out in a choppy ocean, but not being able to look out and see the waves. You indirectly detect them using your inner ear, and balance. But simply because you can not directly put yourself in the water or are unable to develop a device, given your own technological knowhow, with which to detect the waves, does not mean that they do not exist. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 20:58, 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)
:Not sure what the point of the objection is here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
::I was quoting karajou when he dismissed news articles as sources, msnbc is not a source and thus must be recited. There is no other way to explain it [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 20:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
# Counterexample 5: This is not a citation. Requires recitation
# Counterexample 5: This is not a citation. Requires recitation
: No explanation requires no rebuttal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
: No explanation requires no rebuttal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
::The explanation is the citation. Read the articles and you will have your explanation. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 20:58, 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)
: No explanation requires no rebuttal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
::The explanation is the citation. Read the articles and you will have your explanation. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 20:58, 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)
: No explanation requires no rebuttal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
::The explanation is the citation. Read the articles and you will have your explanation. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 20:58, 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)
: 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)
::No it is not, i beg you to please read the citations. I put them there for a reason and your blatant disregard for them is becoming tiresome. Relativity incorporates principles of newtonian mechanics. However we understand most of newtonian mechanics to be a poor model for explaining things on the scale of which GR is talking. Just like GR is a poor model for the behavior of quantum particles. and newtonian mechanics is even worse. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 20:58, 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)
: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)
::as i have said before, quantum mechanics is a completely different scale than GR. GR is a poor model for quantum interactions. but it is a great model for most other things in the universe. I also could not find a source to back up that refutation, i was hoping that someone, with a better understanding of both GR and QM to provide them. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 20:58, 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)
: 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)
::No sir, you are getting tiresome, please read the citations as they are incorporated for a very specific purpose. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 20:58, 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