Changes

Unlike most essay pages, anyone is welcome to contribute.  We ask that you abide by the usual guidelines—do not remove non-vandal, non-parody, non-libelous material without discussing it first on the talk page, or explaining after-the-fact for serious problems.

Unlike most essay pages, anyone is welcome to contribute.  We ask that you abide by the usual guidelines—do not remove non-vandal, non-parody, non-libelous material without discussing it first on the talk page, or explaining after-the-fact for serious problems.

1: ''Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.  Sound like global warming?''

1: ''Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.  Sound like global warming?''

:It has nothing to do with global warming.

:It has nothing to do with global warming.

2: ''The eccentricity of the Moon's orbit is increasing contrary to the theory of relativity''

2: ''The eccentricity of the Moon's orbit is increasing contrary to the theory of relativity''

:This could be a counterexample to both GR and Newtonian gravity--in both, the eccentricity is defined in terms of conserved quantities.  

:This could be a counterexample to both GR and Newtonian gravity--in both, the eccentricity is defined in terms of conserved quantities.  

3: ''Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity.[4] The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement''.

3: ''Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity.[4] The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement''.

:This is an interesting observation.  The world's best scientific minds are looking into it.  That relativity is incorrect is not being taken seriously as a possible explanation.

:This is an interesting observation.  The world's best scientific minds are looking into it.  That relativity is incorrect is not being taken seriously as a possible explanation.

4: ''The Pioneer anomaly.''

4: ''The Pioneer anomaly.''

: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.

: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").''

: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.

: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.''

::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)  

::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)  

::: [Source:  [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]

::: [Source:  [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]

:These error bars, and that of the relativity formula, all overlap.

:These error bars, and that of the relativity formula, all overlap.

:The formula for mechanics under general relativity is complicated, but it is not contrived or conformed.  "Conformed" suggests that it was somehow adjusted or "tweaked" to match the 42.98 figure.  The formula is

:The formula for mechanics under general relativity is complicated, but it is not contrived or conformed.  "Conformed" suggests that it was somehow adjusted or "tweaked" to match the 42.98 figure.  The formula is

:In Einstein's equation, <math>T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "stress-energy tensor", and <math>8 \pi T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> gives the density of the Sun, taking the place of <math>\frac{M}{r^2}\,</math>.  <math>G_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "Einstein curvature tensor", and says how spacetime curves to create an apparent gravitational acceleration.

:In Einstein's equation, <math>T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "stress-energy tensor", and <math>8 \pi T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> gives the density of the Sun, taking the place of <math>\frac{M}{r^2}\,</math>.  <math>G_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "Einstein curvature tensor", and says how spacetime curves to create an apparent gravitational acceleration.

:There is nothing to tweak to get a value of 42.98 arcseconds.  8 is 8.  <math>\pi\,</math> is <math>\pi\,</math>.  K is Newton's constant of gravitation in both formulas.

:There is nothing to tweak to get a value of 42.98 arcseconds.  8 is 8.  <math>\pi\,</math> is <math>\pi\,</math>.  K is Newton's constant of gravitation in both formulas.

9: ''The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.''

9: ''The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.''

:You have to take them going to 0 at the same time! It's nonsense for a massive particle to travel at c!

:You have to take them going to 0 at the same time! It's nonsense for a massive particle to travel at c!

10: ''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''

10: ''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''

:The simple answer is, unequivocally, that it acts on the 'relativistic' mass. The question seems to relate to a simple misunterstanding of Special Relativity. Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance in the body's mass with regard to the direction of the force. Thus to a given observer, a force in any direction will operate on the same mass. However, to a different observer, this mass may be different, although still the constant with regard to the direction of the force.

:The simple answer is, unequivocally, that it acts on the 'relativistic' mass. The question seems to relate to a simple misunderstanding of Special Relativity. Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance in the body's mass with regard to the direction of the force. Thus to a given observer, a force in any direction will operate on the same mass. However, to a different observer, this mass may be different, although still the constant with regard to the direction of the force.

 

11:''The observed lack of curvature in overall space.''

11:''The observed lack of curvature in overall space.''

:What? Is has been observed

:What? Is has been observed

12: ''The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.''

12: ''The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.''

:We're still working on a quantum theory of gravity; this isn't so much a counter-example as saying that (classical)GR isn't valid in that domain.  

:We're still working on a quantum theory of gravity; this isn't so much a counter-example as saying that (classical)GR isn't valid in that domain.  

13: ''The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.''

13: ''The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.''

:Special Relativity only forbids the transmission of matter, energy or information at a speed faster than light. There are plenty of other things that can move faster than light. Consider a laser on Earth which is rotating on a pivot, whose light shines onto the hull of a satellite 200,000Km away (2e8 metres). If the laser rotates at a sedentary one revolution ever four seconds, the speed of the laser beam's tip crossing the satellite's hull is 3.14e8 metres per second - faster than the speed of light. However, this is not a transfer of information. Any information is travelling from Earth to the satellite, obeying the universal speed limit. Similarly, the only information that can be transmitted by the quantum entanglement of two particles is from the originator of the particles to the two observers, not from one observer to another. Faster than light transmission of information using quantum entanglement has never been observed, nor has even conceived how such a mechanism might work.<ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612</ref>

:Special Relativity only forbids the transmission of matter, energy or information at a speed faster than light. There are plenty of other things that can move faster than light. Consider a laser on Earth which is rotating on a pivot, whose light shines onto the hull of a satellite 200,000Km away (2e8 metres). If the laser rotates at a sedentary one revolution ever four seconds, the speed of the laser beam's tip crossing the satellite's hull is 3.14e8 metres per second - faster than the speed of light. However, this is not a transfer of information. Any information is travelling from Earth to the satellite, obeying the universal speed limit. Similarly, the only information that can be transmitted by the quantum entanglement of two particles is from the originator of the particles to the two observers, not from one observer to another. Faster than light transmission of information using quantum entanglement has never been observed, nor has even conceived how such a mechanism might work.<ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612</ref>

14: ''The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.''

14: ''The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.''

37:

37:

38: ''Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein's Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."''

38: ''Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein's Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."''

:The first cited reference, from which the quote was taken, is a totally crackpot web page, from a web site that seems to specialize in hosting crackpot papers.  The writing is essentially illiterate and incoherent, as in this sentence: "According to Faraday's Law it can be explained as that, duo to the magnetic flux in conductor line changing, firstly induced electromotive force dU coming from the line-winded conductor to bring out voltage, then based on differential form <math>I = \frac{-\sigma s dU}{dl}</math> of Ohm's Law, the physical natural would be regarded as 'voltage before electric current' "

:The first cited reference, from which the quote was taken, is a totally crackpot web page, from a web site that seems to specialize in hosting crackpot papers.  The writing is essentially illiterate and incoherent, as in this sentence: "According to Faraday's Law it can be explained as that, duo to the magnetic flux in conductor line changing, firstly induced electromotive force dU coming from the line-winded conductor to bring out voltage, then based on differential form <math>I = \frac{-\sigma s dU}{dl}</math> of Ohm's Law, the physical natural would be regarded as 'voltage before electric current' "

== References ==

== References ==