Changes

4: ''The Pioneer anomaly.''

4: ''The Pioneer anomaly.''

:Wasn't this shown to be due to heat engines?

:The "Pioneer anomaly" is the deviation in the motion of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft from their predicted motion, at the distance of Saturn and beyond.  It should be noted that the anomaly is about 1000 times greater than the difference between the classical Newtonian prediction and the prediction of relativity, so this is not a problem with relativity ''per se''; it is more general than that.

 

:Calculating the force caused by heat (that is, miniscule amounts of infrared radiation) from the radioactive power source was one of the first effects that was examined.  The anomaly arose when this and other known effects could not fully explain the deviation.

 

:The problem is believed to have been solved by taking into account the reflection of the radiation from the power source off of the back of the antenna dish<ref>[http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/]</ref>.  The solution is sometimes described as an application of "Phong shading", a technique of computer graphics that is now considered imprecise.  But Phong shading itself is not what is important.  The "ray tracing" computer graphics technique that underlies Phong shading was what inspired the scientists to take reflection into account.

 

5: ''Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").''

5: ''Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").''

:See above

:This may be another case of the Pioneer anomaly, or it may be something else.  However, it is very unlikely that it shows that relativity is wrong and Newtonian mechanics is correct.

 

6: ''Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "dark matter" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''

6: ''Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "dark matter" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''

:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it due to the acceleration of various parts of galaxies that accelerated funny that led to dark matter (based on simple Newtonian dynamics)?  

:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it due to the acceleration of various parts of galaxies that accelerated funny that led to dark matter (based on simple Newtonian dynamics)?  

7: ''The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "dark energy" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''

7: ''The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "dark energy" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''

:Uh-oh....the dark energy/cosmological constant argument....That term was added by Einstein after he discovered that his field equations (<math>\mathbf{G}=8\pi \mathbf{T}</math>) predicted that the universe was expanding, contradicting his firm philosophical belief in a static universe. So he inserted <math>\Lambda \mathbf{g}</math> to the LHS so that it would predict a static universe. A few years later, Hubble showed the universe to be expanding, and Einstein called the cosmological constant the worst mistake of his career. So, it sort of had a bad reputation, and people didn't want to seriously consider it, until recent observations have shown the universe's expansion to be accelerating forced them to do so. It could have had a very different history. Einstein could have had that term in the EFE's from the start, and pointed out that it would determine if the universe's expansion was accelerating (or not expanding at all!) and it would take further observation to determine its value.   

:Uh-oh....the dark energy/cosmological constant argument....That term was added by Einstein after he discovered that his field equations (<math>\mathbf{G}=8\pi \mathbf{T}</math>) predicted that the universe was expanding, contradicting his firm philosophical belief in a static universe. So he inserted <math>\Lambda \mathbf{g}</math> to the LHS so that it would predict a static universe. A few years later, Hubble showed the universe to be expanding, and Einstein called the cosmological constant the worst mistake of his career. So, it sort of had a bad reputation, and people didn't want to seriously consider it, until recent observations have shown the universe's expansion to be accelerating forced them to do so. It could have had a very different history. Einstein could have had that term in the EFE's from the start, and pointed out that it would determine if the universe's expansion was accelerating (or not expanding at all!) and it would take further observation to determine its value.   

8: ''Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.''

8: ''Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.''

:A footnote goes on to say that "In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century.  Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01) ..."

:A footnote goes on to say that "In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century.  Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01) ..."