74
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 310:
Line 310: + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 20:51, October 16, 2011
, 20:51, October 16, 2011→A couple more problems: new section
:Will review the other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
:Will review the other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
== A couple more problems ==
These went up after I posted the other section so I didn't know what to do. If you would prefer I post it there, then sorry. I'm new to wikis so I don't know proper etiquette and perhaps a missed something in the guidelines :)
Anyway, first thing, you state: "It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."
...Honestly, I am speechless about this. Again, this was taken down but now someone put it back up... You guys honestly think this statement is true? <b>There is no connection between the two--the only thing they have in common is the name "relativity." </b> What, you think that people's morals depend on their frame of reference and change by the relativistic <math> \gamma (\equiv 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2})</math> factor or something?! I am truly shocked by this...What connection is there? Where is the equation that predicts this?
Secondly: "Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light." Nope. <b>Things can't travel at the speed of light, according to SR.</b> Relativity explicitly states that things cannot go faster than light. If you drop this, then of course there are going to be going to be inconsistencies with SR...And that thread only talks about things going <b>at</b> the speed of light. What's the problem with solenoids travelling <b>near</b> <i>c</i>?