Changes

#:::ii) It must be considered that at the time when the Gospels were written, neither their authors nor their intended readers were aware of any concept of the speed of light and were unable to measure the billionths of a second difference between the events being considered here. Thus just as in modern parlance the phrase 'at the same moment' has a tolerance of milliseconds (unless specifically couched to mean otherwise) so do the various terms used by the Evangelists. They would never have considered it an important issue, and would therefore not have worried about the degree of precision.

#:::ii) It must be considered that at the time when the Gospels were written, neither their authors nor their intended readers were aware of any concept of the speed of light and were unable to measure the billionths of a second difference between the events being considered here. Thus just as in modern parlance the phrase 'at the same moment' has a tolerance of milliseconds (unless specifically couched to mean otherwise) so do the various terms used by the Evangelists. They would never have considered it an important issue, and would therefore not have worried about the degree of precision.

#''The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.''

#''The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.''

#:Gravitons are a prediction of [[Quantum Theory]], not of relativity, although the concept is an extension of the relativistic idea that forces take a finite time to be transmitted over a distance. However, as with the failure to detect gravity waves (see 1 above), the lack of detection is conformant with the expectation that they would be unlikely to be detected with current technology.

#:Gravitons are a prediction of [[Quantum Theory]], not of relativity, although the concept is an extension of the relativistic idea that forces take a finite time to be transmitted over a distance.

#:No one expects to observe gravitons.  Calculations show that it is well-nigh impossible with any conceivable detector that we could build.  No one is designing, funding, or building any apparatus to search for gravitons.

#:Now it happens that theoretical physicists discuss and speculate on the existence and nature of such things as gravitons as part of their theoretical work.  Some of these discussions take place among scientists who receive their salaries from various government agencies that are funded by taxpayers.  Whether all of the things that scientists think about, talk about, and write about constitute a good use of money is not for us to say.

#''Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do not experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity''

#''Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do not experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity''

#:Whilst this observation is unconfirmed, if true it would still not invalidate relativity. Many things may vary with position in space, and relativity does not deny this. There is no suggestion that the fine-structure constant is different at the same point in space for observers in different non-inertial frame, as the 'counterexample' implies.

#:Whilst this observation is unconfirmed, if true it would still not invalidate relativity. Many things may vary with position in space, and relativity does not deny this. There is no suggestion that the fine-structure constant is different at the same point in space for observers in different non-inertial frame, as the 'counterexample' implies.

#:(not done yet)

#:(not done yet)

#''"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don't gel."''

#''"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don't gel."''

#:(not done yet)

#:Quoting things without explaining the context is often a bad idea, and the indicated item is a good example of this.  It gives no hint of what the article from which the quote was taken is about.  The article is about one scientist's contribution to the problem of unifying relativity and quantum mechanics.  The scientist, Petr HoYava of Berkeley, has come up with an approach that he says eliminates the infinities that have plagued other unification attempts.

#:It is well known that, just as classical mechanics emerges from quantum mechanics at non-microscopic scales, and classical mechanics emerges from relativity at low speeds, both relativity and quantum mechanics should emerge from the Grand Unified Theory (whatever that turns out to be) at the appropriate scales.

#''The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.''

#''The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.''

#:(not done yet)

#:(not done yet)

#''Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.''

#''Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.''

#:There are no "conditions of a conservative field".  A conservative field is one that has a curl of zero.  Perhaps what was meant was that the gravitational field around the Sun, under Newtonian mechanics, is conservative.  This is true because it is the gradient of an inverse-square scalar field, and all gradients have a curl of zero.  Under relativity, the curl is also zero, due to the Bianchi identity and the symmetries of Riemann's tensor.  See the extensive discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ACounterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=801452&oldid=799266 here].

#:There are no "conditions of a conservative field".  A conservative field is one that has a curl of zero.  Perhaps what was meant was that the gravitational field around the Sun, under Newtonian mechanics, is conservative.  This is true because it is the gradient of an inverse-square scalar field, and all gradients have a curl of zero.  Under relativity, the curl is also zero, due to the Bianchi identity and the symmetries of Riemann's tensor.  See the extensive discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ACounterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=801452&oldid=799266 here].

#''The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?''

#''The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?''

#:(not done yet)

#:(not done yet)

#''Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.''

#''Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.''

#:The claims of that item are preposterous.  Read the cited paper (or its abstract) carefully.  Einstein's statement that clocks would run slower at the equator, due to time dilation, was correct according to special relativity alone.  What Einstein didn't realize was that the gravitational time shift would offset that, because he wouldn't discover general relativity for another 10 years.

#:The claims of that item are preposterous.  Read the cited paper (or its abstract) carefully.  Einstein's statement that clocks would run slower at the equator, due to time dilation, was correct according to special relativity alone.  What Einstein didn't realize, because he wouldn't discover general relativity for another 10 years, was that the gravitational time shift would offset that.

#:A "geoid" (the shape dicussed in the paper) is a theoretical shape used in mathematical physics, that is in equilibrium between the effects of centrifugal force (from rotation) and gravity.  It is essentially an oblate spheroid.  It can be thought of as the shape a rotating planet would take if it were completely fluid.  Or it could be thought of as the shape of "global sea level".  Jupiter, because of its rapid rotation, has a very pronounced flattening at the poles.  Since Jupiter is not solid, its shape is a geoid.  The Earth is ''very nearly'' a geoid, of course.  But not exactly, because of gravitational nonuniformities, and things like mountains, that can exist because of the Earth's rigidity.  No one "made new assumptions about the Earth's shape" to justify anything.  The assumption that the Earth's shape is a geoid is a theoretical assumption due to the ''approximately'' fluid nature of the Earth.  But no one claims that the Earth's shape is anything other than what it is observed and measured to be.

#:A "geoid" (the shape dicussed in the paper) is a theoretical shape used in mathematical physics, that is in equilibrium between the effects of centrifugal force (from rotation) and gravity.  It is essentially an oblate spheroid.  It can be thought of as the shape a rotating planet would take if it were completely fluid.  Or it could be thought of as the shape of "global sea level".  Jupiter, because of its rapid rotation, has a very pronounced flattening at the poles.  Since Jupiter is not solid, its shape is a geoid.  The Earth is ''very nearly'' a geoid, of course.  But not exactly, because of gravitational nonuniformities, and things like mountains, that can exist because of the Earth's rigidity.  No one "made new assumptions about the Earth's shape" to justify anything.  The assumption that the Earth's shape is a geoid is a theoretical assumption due to the ''approximately'' fluid nature of the Earth.  But no one claims that the Earth's shape is anything other than what it is observed and measured to be.

#:What the paper is about is the fact that the effects of rotational speed and gravitational time dilation happen to cancel each other on an ideal geoid.  So all clocks at "sea level" on an ideal geoid-shaped planet run at the same speed.  Whether this result is implausible is not for us to say.

#:What the paper is about is the fact that the effects of rotational speed and gravitational time dilation happen to cancel each other on an ideal geoid.  So all clocks at "sea level" on an ideal geoid-shaped planet run at the same speed.  Whether this result is implausible is not for us to say.