79
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 419:
Line 419: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 11:41, August 9, 2011
, 11:41, August 9, 2011→A point of view on this article
:::::The counterexamples are well-supported by citations or obvious logic. The internet is popular for learning because books have limitations of being outdated and subject to biased censorship. If you want to limit learning to what is written in books, rather than using logic as well as the most recently available information, then why are you even discussing science on the internet?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:39, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::The counterexamples are well-supported by citations or obvious logic. The internet is popular for learning because books have limitations of being outdated and subject to biased censorship. If you want to limit learning to what is written in books, rather than using logic as well as the most recently available information, then why are you even discussing science on the internet?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:39, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
Ok, let's use logic, then :D Point 32: given a four-vector p<sup>µ</sup>=(p<sup>0</sup>,p<sup>1</sup>,p<sup>2</sup>,p<sup>3</sup>), the inverse vector
is defined as q<sup>µ</sup>=(-p<sup>0</sup>,-p<sup>1</sup>,-p<sup>2</sup>,-p<sup>3</sup>). As you can easily check, p<sup>µ</sup>+q<sup>µ</sup> is the null four-vector, and this holds for every p<sup>µ</sup>. A negative time component is not absurd, it just relates with events happened in the past.
This is math, not, physics, ok? It is true because the Lorentz vectors are ''defined'' this way.
Another example: it is written, or seems so to a reader, that relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatibile (point 20). This is not true at all, since relativistic quantum theories like Quantum Electrodynamics are the most successful theories in the history of physics. They work in curved spacetime too, if you keep fixed the geometry. The absurdities emerge when you try to "animate" the gravity field, ant it's an open research field.
Another one: the Higgs field has nothing to do with aether. The classical aether was meant to be the media in which light propagates, the Higgs field not. In fact, the light propagates in vacuum. I want to stress this point: aether does not exist, it is known by more than a century. (and I hope that
in a couple of years will be found out that the Higgs field doesn't exist, too)
This is one of the best: "The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics." Relativity
is the skeleton of all the theories that describe ''all'' the nature's forces. For example, antimatter is a consequence of relativity.
It seems that your scientific internet-based knowledge is quite updated... (and, yes, relativity is useful. Try thinking to the positron-electron tomography).
I'll ask you again: do you think that the speed of light is constant for every observer or varies? --[[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 07:41, 9 August 2011 (EDT)