SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 492:
Line 492: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 01:36, August 15, 2011
, 01:36, August 15, 2011→Attempt at Helping the Consnesus Along: new section
::P.s. I forgot: do you want a plot of ''v'' as a function of ''m'' so you can see with your eyes that there aren't any discontinuities in <math>m\to 0\,</math>? I can easily do it.
::P.s. I forgot: do you want a plot of ''v'' as a function of ''m'' so you can see with your eyes that there aren't any discontinuities in <math>m\to 0\,</math>? I can easily do it.
== Attempt at Helping the Consnesus Along ==
Well, MM87 and Jcw, if you're looking for a consensus of other people to join in on this subject, you're not going to be particularly gratified by the result. Nearly everyone who knows or cares about the topic has been driven off or has otherwise left, especially people who accept the premises of Einsteinian relativity or the interpretations of same that are accepted by the scientific community. But I'll give it a try. This is just a quick summary; no time to go into detail.
1. True, the ''direct'' search for gravity waves has not yet yielded any results, though indirect observations have been made (Hulse/Taylor.) Before people dismiss indirect observations, recall that no one has ever seen an electron. Whether the LIGO and LISA experiments are a good use of money is another question; one that has no bearing on whether relativity is correct.
2. Rubbish. You can't take every new observation that we don't yet have an explanation for and say that that disproves relativity. Relativity never claimed it would neatly, precisely, and straightforwardly explain every future observation of everything.
3. Is the Pioneer anomaly ''still'' in here? It was never about relativity. It is 1000 times greater than the difference between Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics. In any case, it seems to have been solved recently by consideration of the reflection of radiation off the back of the antenna dish.
4. See 2 and 3.
5. Not related to relativity (except insofar as the fact that gravity exists.) Large-scale galaxy dynamics is complicated. People are working on it. If someone wants to make a contribution to this field that involves replacing relativity, go right ahead.
6 See extensive discussion with user KSorenson, for example. GR does a spectacularly good job of explaining the precession. There may still be tiny deviations from the current best observations, but there are an enormous number of complex things going on. People have moved on. If someone wants to continue beating this dead horse, go right ahead.
7. Rubbish, based on profound misunderstanding. See MM87's debunking.
8. The terms "rest mass" and "relativistic mass", as distinct quantities, is archaic. Read some reasonably modern textbooks, and the confusion should be cleared up.
9. What? Is there some confusion between local curvature (which is undeniable; it causes gravity) and global curvature? Remember that the curvature tensor is very complicated. You can't just throw around terms like "overall curvature." The subject is complicated. In any case, plain Einsteinian GR admits a number of global solutions (LeMaitre, Friedmann, etc.) Working out the problems of overall structure of the universe does not refute relativity.
10. The fact that quantum mechanics and relativity have not been ''totally'' reconciled is well known. That doesn't disprove either, except insofar as it suggests that the future "grand unified theory" will expand on both and thereby differ, in its details, from both. Also, keep in mind that the "standard model" is a "relativistic field theory". It (and the Dirac equation before it) unifies relativity and quantum mechanics far better than this page would suggest.
11. See 10.
12. See 10. Also, few people believe that the events related in the Bible had been measured to microsecond accuracy; the tools for doing so had not been invented. Also, even modern medicine can't measure the time of "cures" or "healing" to microsecond accuracy. Of course, if you are really just saying "The Bible says that relativity is wrong, and that settles it", so be it.
13. No one ever expected to observe gravitons. That calculations show that it is well-nigh impossible. This is known. No experiments have ever been devised, suggested, or funded for this purpose.
14. See 10. Also, relativity doesn't say that ''everything'' is the same. The view from my house is different from the view from your house.
15. See 2.
16. Unfathomable.
17. Utterly irrelevant. See 2.
18. Unfathomable. See 2.
19. See 2 and 10.
20. See 2 and 10.
21. Interesting speculation (science is full of them); see 2.
22. Misunderstanding of the dynamics of black holes. It's a complicated subject.
23. They're not doing the experiment any more. It did its job, and it's finished. No one drops cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa any more either.
24. See 16.
25. Profound misunderstanding of the subject. See 8.
26. See 7, 8, and 25.
27. There are no "conditions of a conservative field". This is just confused. See extensive discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ACounterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=801452&oldid=799266 here]. (Sorry about all the extraneous material.)
28. Not a paradox. The subject is complicated. Ehrenfest did not disprove relativity.
29. See 28. Einstein did not say that. The footnote muddies the waters. The twin paradox is well known.
30. The claims of that item are preposterous. "Made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction?" Ridiculous. Read the cited paper carefully. It (like all the other cited papers) does not refute relativity.
31. Rubbish. The Michelson-Morley "luminiferous aether" is not the Higgs field. See 10.
32. Profound misunderstanding of vector spaces.
33. No. Such experiments have been conducted many times. Relativity is universally accepted.
34. Uh, no.
35. They are not "beyond understanding". They are beyond closed-form solution. Cosmologists work with approximate solutions all the time.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:36, 14 August 2011 (EDT)