Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity/archive2

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.

This Talk Page is for Discussion Focused on the Improvement of the Corresponding Article
  • Your post should not deviate from the aforementioned purpose; this is not a page for debate on the topic.
  • Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~).
  • Please place new text under old text; click here to add a new section.
For article guidelines please see the Commandments and Guidelines

Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates 90/10.

Countering the counterexamples

The content of this page aside, I question whether it serves the interests of CP for it to exist in its current form. CP has been lucky to attract a long string of competent math and physics editors. Yet once again it finds itself in the position of not having any except ASchlafly and Ed Poor. Many of these editors were good-faith contributors who wrote a lot of other science articles and generally improved the site, but were eventually driven out after becoming frustrated with this opposition to relativity (and its cousin, the pervasive skepticism about complex numbers).

Actually, it was their refusal to write articles on basic topics accessible to our average reader's background that sealed their doom. While Andy is much more tolerant of "advanced" articles on math, etc., I prefer that each article at least begin with an introduction that even a high school student can understand.
I even started to suspect that this refusal went beyond mere inability to empathize with our readership, but could be a deliberate flouting of editorial policy.
Bottom line: it's not the topic, but how it's described. No science topic is out of bounds here. --Ed Poor Talk 13:00, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

Yes, maybe free speech dictates that this page ought to remain. But when the viewpoints of supporters of relativity have been without exception removed from the page, is there really free speech at all? ASchlafly, you remove these views on the grounds that they are not logical. But their proponents hold them surely as you hold your position, so would it not be reasonable to allow the other side to be posted somewhere, maybe on another page rebutting this one?

Disbelieving the theory of relativity is really not a conservative position as such, so I think it's a shame that it has caused CP so much harm. Indeed, the only person who seems to be convinced by these "counterexamples" is ASchlafly: the public (liberal and conservative) constantly disputes them on the talk page; the media openly mocks this page and hurts the public perception of CP's credibility; even some CP administrators, surely open-minded conservatives, disagree with these positions. (Maybe some editors have expressed agreement. Such are certainly parodists and should be banned on sight.)

I think it would be advisable to allow some pro-relativity views back on this site, in the interest of free speech, keeping productive editors, and maintaining credibility. --KyleT 11:54, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

Kyle, your rant is misplaced and does not warrant a detailed response. If you would like to set up a new entry along the lines of what you propose, please do so. It can go point-by-point in trying to rebut the counterexamples. Good luck doing so, because each counterexample has withstood every attempt to criticize it.--Andy Schlafly 11:58, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

Despite my oppositions to the arguments contained on this page, science is about progress through repeatable experimentation. If a theory is found to be incompatible to experimental data, then it is editted or thrown out. A great many papers published on relativity (see websites such as NASA's ADS for peer reviewed papers) contain a great many references to other authors that have aided the writers in their work. These references are peer reviewed and in turn built on the foundations of many older peer reviewed references.

The references that are presently used in the 'Counterexamples to Relativity' page are of dubious origin.

1. Is not a reference, as it does not contain 1) The author, title, ISBN number, print edition, print date, publisher, and page number where the quote about how relativity misleads the public is contained. It can be corrected if you input these important bits of information, so that people can follow your reasoning.

2. Whilst this is arguably a reference, the website does not contain data as to when it was originally accessed, which may bring into question if the page has been edited by some outsider since your use as a reference. There is also and more importantly the question of MSNs reliability as a reference. As it is not a peer reviewed article, it is written by a non-scientist, with no references to papers written BY NASA scientists on the occurrence claimed within, it is highly unreliable. It would be more precise to actually reference a peer-reviewed paper, or report by an acclaimed institute, which specialise in the sciences explaining or even mentioning the anomalies.

3. Reference 3 is not a reference, as it does not actually refer to a specific source of data. There is no reference to percentages of physics majors that cannot replicate relativity equations. The data quoted is also unreferenced, and should in any case be contained in the body of the article, and not in the references. Finally when mentioning Professor Clifford Will, it is again unreferenced about his 'omitted this in listing tests confirming relativity.' Please reference this quotation by finding it in his articles, and reference it.

4. Reference 4 is not a reference at all, as it is a statement of opinion. I would also point out that you say 'If space were curved, one would never expect the universe as a whole to be almost precisely flat. Yet it is.' But as you can see using the term 'almost precisely flat' you are actually saying that there is a partial curvature in space-time, as the universe would have to be precisely flat, and not almost precisely flat. Again reference peer reviewed papers on the curvature of space-time and perhaps the explanations of the so called 'flatness problem in cosmology' and perhaps look at 'solutions to the flatness problem'.

5. Again this reference does not contain any information as to where you are getting your claims. Perhaps referencing papers from a peer reviewed paper about quantum entanglement, involving the author, title, Journal title or ISBN number, print edition, print date, publisher, and page number.

6. This link actually sends the user to another conservapedia page, and upon inspection then reveals the reference to this page as a BBC website article. Whilst I am a strong fan of the BBC, again as my issue with reference number 2, the data accessed has not been input, and the BBC is also a dubious source for referencing. Please use peer reviewed papers as sites such as BBC/MSN are 'popular' science ie do not explain the actually cause of certain anomalies, and please follow reference guidelines.

7. Again New Scientist is not a peer-reviewed paper and is not a reliable reference source. Whilst the paper goes into more detail that your average website article, it is still written in laymen’s terms, and often actually avoids the mathematical details that are unbendable by opinion. It would be more correct to reference the paper that the scientists within have published on their findings, rather than relying on the NS's analysis of it.

8. Again for reference 7.

9. Excellent! An actual peer reviewed paper in here! However when citing papers, it is more correct to cite the author, title, Journal title or ISBN number, print edition, print date, publisher, and page number rather than the website that the data is taken from.

10. Again this is not referenced. It would be correct to reference Professor Stephen Hawking’s papers on black hole entropy. I believe that there may be some in NASA's that you can find and reference following conventions.

11. This is again not referenced as it does not contain any link to the press release, or papers written by the The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy refuting the claims by scientists that GPS does not rely on relativity. Doing so would be useful to disprove relativity.

12. Reference 12 links back to reference 1, which for some reason starts out scientific, but then the reference it is linked to be reference 1, which at no point actually explains, or even mentions the tensor-stress-energy that is present in relativity. Again using a corrected reference 1 would be more correct than having a reference 12. It would also more good to mention that the scientific part of reference 12 should also be contained in the body of the text, and a reference for the science, such as Einstein's papers should be referenced for the mathematical cases to be seen as correct.

13. Reference 13 is a statement and not a reference. It should be moved into the main body of the text and referenced itself, by citing a peer-reviewed paper.

14. Nature magazine is a reputable peer reviewed source, but as reference no 9, it should be referenced by the author, title, Journal title or ISBN number, print edition, print date, publisher, and page number rather than the website that the data is taken from.

15. Again this is not referenced correctly, as it does not say who the author is, etc. It would actually be honest to point out that in no case in physics, engineering, biology, chemistry, can equations be shone to be perfectly correct, but more often as moderately to highly accurate models, depending on the situation.

Editing the above errors in referencing will make the page more professional. Vancouver or Harvard referencing are used world wide, and there is no excuse to reference incorrectly. Doing so cheapens the image of the author, and is often than not an insult to the reader.

Hope this has been helpful. Regards, ARogers

A reminder

We are all scientists here: we all seek the truth.

"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

-- Isaac Asimov

Freiberg 15:42, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

That's misleading. Hardly anyone ever thought the earth was flat, at least not since Western Civilization began. And the earth is so near to a perfect sphere that a globe (atlas) needs no "polar flattening".
Don't try to make subtle points: come out and say whatever it is you were trying to say. --Ed Poor Talk 22:58, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

Pioneer anomoly

The first counterexample, "The Pioneer anomaly", doesn't actually satisfy the list's purpose as stated by "Here is a list of 29 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect."

Under Pioneer_anomaly#Explanations there's a list of potential explanations for the anomaly, and while "The theory of General Relativity and the Law of Universal Gravitation could be wrong" is on that list so are drag forces and the presence of unknown celestial bodies. In other words, the anomaly itself could still exist even if general relativity is 100% accurate.

Maybe "shows" should be changed to "suggests"? Stoob

All of the other items also have explanations that do not contradict relativity. RSchlafly 13:28, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
I have to agree wholeheartedly - and I can see that you are trying for quite a while to get rid of these distortions, at Counterexamples to Relativity and Theory of Relativity. I liked your comment:
All of those statements are completely false. Relativity has no physical discontinuities, logic contradictions, or contradictions from evidence. Relativity promoters are no more liberal than those who promote quantum mechanics, superconductivity, or any other aspect of physics. RSchlafly 10:30, 24 November 2009 (EST)
But seeing how long this is going on, my hopes for any improvements are vanishing... RonLar 08:23, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

If Biblical quotes are allowed...

Since we are allowing quotes from the Bible to undermine Relativity, can I also use quotes from the Quran in the "Counterexamples to the Bible" section? Seems only fair.

Are you saying all books are created equal, Pete?--Andy Schlafly 22:49, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
That is precisely what I am saying. For example, it seems to me that the page "Christian apologetics" could, with a few alterations, be renamed "Islamic apologetics". Pete 17 August 2010 (EDT)
Sorry, Pete, but truth is not relative on this site.--Andy Schlafly 00:04, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
I agree, truth is not relative, neither here nor anywhere. However, it seems to me, but the laws of logic, that exactly one of the following statements must be true -
1. The Bible is true
2. The Qu'ran is true
3. Neither are true
You are assuming #1 to falsify #2 and #3. Then why can't I assume #2 to falsify #1 and #3. That seems perfectly in line with what you are doing. Paul 18:07, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
No, Pete, you have come here assuming the Bible is false, and you're pushing your religious beliefs here. I think you better give it up. Karajou 18:10, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
I have no religious beliefs. What I am "pushing" is rational thinking and embracing science. Paul 18:26, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
You are pushing a religious belief, and it certainly is not rational. Karajou 18:29, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

What religion am I adhering to? And is it irrational because it is supported by hundreds of years of scientific scrutiny?

Belief or non-belief in God is a religious belief. And which scientists are irrational? Do they include the thousands of PHd's who believe in God? Karajou 18:37, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
Non-belief is a religion the same way that bald is a hair color. You disregard a million gods; I disregard a million plus one, and I'm irrational? Out of those thousands of PhD holder's, how many have written papers presenting testable evidence of God? The difference between my non-belief and your belief is that my non-belief is not actively trying to undo scientific advancement; my non-belief has never raised millions of dollars to pass laws that tell two loving adults that they are not as good as their heterosexual counterparts; my non-belief has never caused my young son to come home in tears because he was told that he was destined to spend an eternity being tortured because "Your daddy doesn't go to church"; my non-belief ruler (if it had one) has never refrained from intervening in the molestation of a child despite being perfectly capable of doing so.
I am sitting now, alone in my study, and there is a quarter on my desk. If this quarter were to flip from heads to tails by itself, I would instantly become a convert to Christianity. As of yet, the quarter has not moved. Either there is no god, or he does not care about saving me enough to give me even the slightest bit of evidence. Now, absence of proof does not proof there is no god; however, the silence has been awful hard to ignore. Paul 18:54, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
I don't expect you to change in an instant if that quarter flips by itself, but here you are, in our site, knowing we are Christian, and you are willfully and deliberately pushing your non-beliefs here. A wolf amongst the sheep.
And there is a God, and He does care enough about you to send His Son; the evidence for it is historical and documented. Whether or not you choose to accept Him is up to you, but I don't think He's going to give into a demand for a test just because you feel like it. Karajou 19:01, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
Paul, atheists don't build hospitals, don't have championship teams, and don't give much to charity. Atheism is a self-centered ideology that leads individuals and societies to self-destructive rather than selfless conduct. Even your quarter example is self-centered. Atheists are also censors of classroom prayer, even when everyone in the classroom wants to pray.
There's no free lunch. Selfish ideologies aren't getting away with anything. Over time, the objective individual wakes up to where the road of atheism takes him, and he finds another road.--Andy Schlafly 19:08, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
Aren't Warren Buffet and Bill Gates atheists? They've donated billions to charity, I think more than a third of everything they earned during their lifetimes. Definitely no championship teams though... Stoob
Gates' wife is a devout Catholic, I think, and together they've given money to a foundation they control. I'm not aware of their building any hospitals. Ditto for Buffet. Moreover, their wealth is just a drop in the bucket of the overall wealth of atheists, very little of which goes to atheists.
What's another name for a self-centered, uncharitable person who censors classroom prayer? An atheist.--Andy Schlafly 21:35, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
Andy, there are atheists doing charitable work. The relatively small work being done is easily attributable to atheists being cast out from society for millenia, and only recently gathering ground and forging a community. See [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. There are many others, and the number and size of these organizations continues to grow. You may want to believe that atheists lack charity, but the world simply must disagree with you. AAckermann 11:03, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
The world disagrees with you in one respect, AAckermann. Since 1963 when a loud-mouth atheist named Madalyn Murray O'Hair used her hate to remove prayer from public schools, we have had consistent and constant attacks by atheists and like-minded individuals against Christians through legislation, speeches, books and other published material, film and television, as well as personal threats, intimidation, and violence. That is mainstream atheism in action here, and I would hardly call that "charitable." Karajou 11:13, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
Prayer is still permitted in schools; Any child can, at their choosing, pray as they feel. All that has changed is the school must not direct it. Just as I'm sure you wouldn't want your children forced to pray for Allah, we must not force children to pray for God, or any other deities. AAckermann 11:31, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
And you're wrong once again. A kid begins a prayer, an atheistic parent gets mad and sues the school district with the help of the ACLU; that fact alone is in the newspapers in some part of the country at least once a week. We're not going to make atheism look good here, AAckermann, not just because doing so is against the site's policies, but because doing so is an impossibility. Karajou 11:38, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
Please cite any case where that happened. The ACLU defends human rights, not anti-Christian concepts. AAckermann 11:43, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
You know full-well what I'm talking about, AAckermann; you've seen the citations and the news about the subject too many times yourself. Karajou 11:49, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
In answer to the above troll's "request" for a cite backing up what I said about prayer and the ACLU's attempts to stop it, how about 22,000 of them: [6]. If the ACLU was so bent up about defending human rights, they would be defending the rights of anyone to engage in prayer anytime, anywhere, as per the First Amendment. Karajou 12:01, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
Karajou, I'm not sure a list of google results is an accepted citation...however, playing along, I looked at the first result. It was about how a school was required to take down a banner that asked "Our Heavenly Father" to watch over them. Are you saying, Karajou, that if a school hung a banner that said "Praise be to Allah", you'd be fine with that? Side note, in your "citation", I noticed, a couple down, that the ACLU also sued a Twin Cities school for promoting Islam. Are you outraged about that?
AAckermann, I've noticed from posting here for a while, that any time you request proof or a citation, you get responses in line with "You know full-well what I'm talking about" and little else.
PS Karajou, I have a "citation" for you:
Mine has 27,000 results. More true, then, yes? (Mr. Schlafly, I mean no disrespect with that link. I was just using it as an illustration. I'm sure you love kittens as everyone does :) Paul 14:19, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

(unindent) A lot of what Ackermann was talking about is unrelated to the purpose of this page, which is to help contributors improve the article ... not to debate school prayer. Maybe we can cut and paste samo of the above to one of our Conservapedia:Debate topics. --Ed Poor Talk 13:30, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

Black Holes are High Entropy

Point 16 states that black holes are highly ordered, thus possess low entropy. However, black hole entropy is understood to increase as expected by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: [7]. The citation refuting a similar proposition by Stephen Hawking is also not a citation, but an assertion by some individual. It would be more effective to cite peer-reviewed research showing black holes do not possess entropy through these mechanisms. AAckermann 14:47, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

Searchlight Paradox

Number 30 is a misunderstanding of relativity. The essence of the argument is that the "spotlight (that is, where the light ends)" will move faster than the speed of light, moving from point A to point B faster than the speed of light. However, the inaccuracy in this thinking is that the light at point A and point B are not the same - point A and point B share no common photons.

Think of it like a water hose. You are spraying water onto the lawn. Then you turn around, 180 degrees, and spray on the street. Did the water on the lawn move to the street? No, they are two different sets of water.

Also, there is no violation in the transmission of information, because point A and point B are not communicating with each other - the searchlight is communicating with point A, and THEN with point B.

I await the removal of this counterexample. Paul 18:07, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

I agree with this general sentiment. There is a mistake in reasoning in the article that even if we suppose that the light source was a movie projector for instance. Two observers that are located the same distance away from the light source would receive the same information, they have not communicated with each other in any way. Imagine a light source that radiates in two polar directions, and two observers located 1 light year away from the source. Both would receive the information in 1 year. Using the naive reasoning in the article this constitutes a breakdown in causality because the observers are two light years apart, however they clearly have not communicated with each other and have simply received the same information from a single source. There is no way for observer A to confirm that observer B has received the information. You can argue that they agreed that they will be in the same location, but this act of agreement requires transmission of information (telling the other where to wait) along a causal channel, and you have gleaned no NEW information about the other observer, all the information you have gleaned has come from causal channels. This same reasoning applies to the sweeping light source.I would remove the argument, but since I am a new user I would prefer to wait for someone who has more say in the community--DenisTR 16:50, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
OK, thanks for the good points. We are open-minded here and I've stricken that particular counterexample based on the logic above.--Andy Schlafly 18:19, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Different values of Inertia

For counter-example 19, I'm not quite sure I understand. The value of the inertial mass (m) is constant for a given physical body undergoing any sort of motion, whether parallel or perpendicular to the observer's motion. I don't want to remove this as an counter-example to relativity before I understand what the author meant. Could this be clarified for me? Thanks.

The rest mass is the same. I think Lorentz discovered what he called the longitudinal and transverse mass in around 1900. It was experimentally testing in around 1902. Einstein uses similar terminology in his 1905 paper. RSchlafly 02:32, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

counter example 12

counter example 12, referring to the W13 magnetar does have an explanation that, while not proven, or provable, is at least consistent with relativity. It is explained here one possible way it could have formed. Vikten 16:38, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

The attempt to reconcile the W13 data with relativity is highly speculative, unproven, and seems implausible to me. Almost anything can be reconciled with any theory if enough speculation about additional causes or forces is allowed, but that process is hardly scientific.--Andy Schlafly 00:45, 20 October 2010 (EDT)
It is less about trying to reconcile it with relativity as it is to basic astrophysics. More than that, if in fact the speculated method of formation is false, the resulting fallout would be far more reaching than simply overthrowing relativity. It would cast doubt on much of modern physics (which obviously are done with relativity in mind) but even many other possible interpretations of space and time, such as the pre-relativity Eddington Paradigm. This is not so much a counter example to relativity but an unknown in physics as a whole, and as more information is gained about the W13 Magnetar, if the above speculated method of formation is found to be false, we will see a revolution of physics surrounding its study. I don't think it should be removed as a counter example, but perhaps clarified to show that it does not fit the traditional method of magnetar formation, and that other hypothesis have been unproven, and that it could have far-reaching effects, not just relativity.Vikten 18:48, 27 October 2010 (EDT)
The basic problem posed by #12 is that Relativity predicts a black hole but there is none. Classical physics does not predict a black hole.
But that is beside the point. The issue is whether Relativity is true or not, regardless of other theories. It's difficult to find the correct theory as long as people cling to an incorrect one.--Andy Schlafly 19:54, 27 October 2010 (EDT)


Not sure if this belongs here, but Tachyons seem to violate relativity, (while they do fit the math, strictly) They are quite confusing, and even under the most scientifically liberal interpretations, these hypothetical particles are somewhat self contradictory. 19:46, 19 October 2010 (EDT)

Thanks for mentioning this, and I'll investigate it further. Please feel free to edit the content page for this as you think best.--Andy Schlafly 00:47, 20 October 2010 (EDT)

John 4:53

As Jesus didn't state that the healing happened instantaneously, but we have only the report of the nobleman who spotted the coincidence, the sign could have happened

  1. instantaneously
  2. with the speed of light
  3. with the speed of sound (the word)

So, this is no example of an Action-at-a-distance! AugustO 10:04, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

No, the point of the story is that it happened at the same moment. The modern translation should reflect that obvious meaning.--Andy Schlafly 11:05, 18 March 2011 (EDT)
No, the point of the story is that it happened at the same moment. The modern translation should reflect that obvious meaning.
Obviously, God could have created the Heavens and the Earth in a single moment. He chose to take six days. How do we know this? Because He told us so, not a mortal. Obviously, the Lord Almighty can't be exhausted. But he chose to rest for the seventh day. Again, we know this as He told us so Himself.
We don't know which time the Lord chose to take to perform the sign of the son. Obviously, it could have happened in an instant. Or a heartbeat. Or with the speed of light or sound. The Lord doesn't tell us His (and not our!) choice. We only have the word of a mortal man, who measured the period up to an hour: the seventh hour is between 12:30 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. - even between 12:35 p.m and 1:45 p.m. in the summer. This reminds me of Galileo's trials to measure the speed of light with the help of a servant and two shuttered lantern...
I'll revert your reversion of my edit - and perhaps I get blocked for this, though I am giving ample reason for my acts. Thus you could avoid to address my points, and ignore them like quite a few arguments against items in the list of counterexamples. As Rschlafly said: All of the other items also have explanations that do not contradict relativity. But I hope that you just answer the following questions:
  • Do you have any justification for your translation other than the Lord could have done this in a single instant? As I mentioned above, the Bible is about what God did, and so your translation shouldn't be be about what God could have done, neither.
  • Above, you wrote: The instantaneous healing is central to the purpose of the event. and the point of the story is that it happened at the same moment. How so? Why has the healing to be spontaneous, when the creation of the world took six days?
--AugustO 10:36, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
For a moment, I won't address the problematic translation of John 4:53. Instead consider the following little story:
When I was in New York, I visited a small broadcasting studio. I was there at the begin of the broadcasting of the 1 o'clock news - and it started at 1 o'clock. The next day, I told a friend about this - and he said, that he had watched this very beginning of the news show at 1 o'clock, but in Danbury, Connecticut, roughly sixty miles away. I questioned whether he was sure of this - and he said that he had looked not only at his watch, but also at the sundial in his garden.
Does this story disproves the Theory of Relativity?
AugustO 09:55, 21 April 2011 (EDT)

Refutations & Edits

The following are refutations of points made in the article by user Gresavage, and is meant for article improvement. Discuss one at a time. Karajou 14:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

seeing no further discussion from the administrators on these points which have already been previously discussed in great detail on this talk page, i am going to edit the page. Gresavage 18:50, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
I'm going to refute all of the "counterexamples" which incorporate quantum interactions. This is due to the fact that it is generally accepted that GR does not account for them. It is a mathematical model that applies to a certain range of values. The values encountered in QM and the ones on the much larger scale at the other end of the spectrum are not within the domain of GR. If GR did in fact agree with QM in it's predictions of quantum interactions, then we would have found the elusive "unifying gravitational field theory". Which of course we have not. There is in fact no unifying field theory. comparing GR and QM, is very much akin to trying to compare principles of circuits to principles of newtonian mechanics (F=ma). Yes, there is some overlap, but these two things deal with, and are born from, completely different domains; yet are proven to exist due to the same thing (electromagnetism). If i were to try to solve for voltages and currents in a mechanics problem, naturally i would have wrong answers. This does not imply that either of them is incorrect. As i have said, to properly determine whether a theory is accurate, one must see if it is true everywhere in it's domain. So far, GR has been proven to be true everywhere in it's domain. If that is not the case, then we limit the domain solely to where it is true. This is a very well known principle of mathematics. Take, for instance, the function ; and lets say that we are using this function to try to explain a graph, (lets say the graph of: if U(x)={(2+x)/(4-x2) for -∞<x<-2 ∪ -2<x<2 ∪ 2<x<∞; 3 for x = -2 ; 5 for x = 2}. We would find that the graphs are nearly identical. However there are two hitches. The first is that the graphs are NOT identical, this would be the metaphor between GR and the actual universe, as well as QM and the actual universe. The graphs are only mostly identical, in fact, they are so identical that the percent error goes to 0 as the limit of x → ∞. This does not mean that is a bad representation of , it means that it is not the exact one. Lets say that at QM says that for x=2 , and for x=-2 . This theory of QM would be a good model for the universe where GR falls short. This also does not mean that GR or QM is a bad model. QM being true at some points does not mean that GR is generally inaccurate, just as QM being true in ALL points does not mean that GR is generally inaccurate. In fact, both models can be true independently, as well as simultaneously (however they are not true simultaneously in this example).(this metaphor, however, is not a good example of the true relationship between the universe and QM). Finally, to say that GR is not a good model for the universe because at one point, or even a range of points, it is inaccurate, would be an erroneous statement. To say that because GR is a bad model at 2, and/or -2, because it does not match exactly what the universe () is doing, it then must be a bad model everywhere else, would be erroneous. Also, to say that solely because is not defined at x=2, it must be a bad model of the universe, is incredibly erroneous, as it is a near perfect model everywhere else! And in fact, this is the relationship that GR shares with the universe, and QM. Where GR leaves off (is not defined/is an inaccurate model) is exactly where QM picks up, and is an accurate model. That is not to say, that because QM is true where GR is not true, GR as a whole must be an erroneous theory, is preposterous. And to think otherwise is an incredible misunderstanding of math, physics, logic, and the universe as a whole. Gresavage 20:12, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

I intersperse my rebuttals below:

  1. Header:Theory of relativity: A set of mathematical relations showing that mass and energy come from equivalent space curvatures that can appear differently in different observational situations. NOT "a mathematical system that allows no exception". The statement is ambiguous and false. Requires rewording Citation:;
No explanation requires no rebuttal. There are no exceptions to mathematical truths, such as 2+2=4. If one exception is found, then the mathematical statement is disproved.--Andy Schlafly 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
2+2 = 0, 2+2=1, 2+2=3, 2+2=10, 2+2=11, 2+2=100, 2+2= and 2+2=4 are all true. They can not be simultaneously true. Furthermore, truth is relative to the constraints you put on the system in which you are observing. which is why 2+2 = 0, 2+2=1, 2+2=3, 2+2=10, 2+2=11, 2+2=100, and 2+2=4 are all true. There are some mathematical expressions that can be violated. Mathematical systems therefore do allow exceptions. And furthermore, when you try to apply GR outside of the scope of the system over which it is defined, it breaks down. It's just like trying to plug in x = 2 to the function . Are you therefore going to say that f(x) must not be true since it is not defined over 2, which is not in it's natural domain? Gresavage 20:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
  1. Header:"It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."|This talks about social relativism and is thereby irrelevant. Furthermore, the assertion that it is heavily promoted by liberals is not cited. You would require that there be some study showing that a tenant of liberalism is to promote the theory of relativity. Should be removed. Citation: No citation needed → irrelevant.
Self-evident statements hardly require a citation. But see Tribe's law review article, which he credits the president for supposedly helping with it, for one example.--Andy Schlafly 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
it's no matter, social relativism ≠ General Relativity. You are trying to imply that they do, which is false by their definitions. FURTHERMORE self evident statements is a nonsensical term. And i would hardly say that that statement is self evident. it is not intuitively obvious that a tenant of liberalism is to believe in either social relativism or general or special relativity. Gresavage 20:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
  1. Header: "any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.". Does this mean that only examples that fully falsify relativity be included? If so the list should be revised.
Your statement seems to have a grammatical error and I can't make sense of it.--Andy Schlafly 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
excuse me i mean to imply that (from my recollection) none of the counterexamples tautologically prove GR to be false. I want to know whether this page should include only Counterexamples that can do that, or if we are just going to include insignificant "roadblocks" like the ehrenfest and twin paradoxes, which are easily explained by GR. In fact they are included in entry level courses in GR. No scientist in the last century, who has been well or even slightly versed, in the theory of GR understand these to be true paradoxes, As there is an explicit solution. Simply because one may not be able to comprehend the answer does not mean it's wrong. Gresavage 20:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
  1. Counterexample 1: This is not a counterexample of relativity and "sounds like global warming?" is pejorative speculation. it is furthermore false. gravitational waves have been indirectly detected. Should be removed. Citation:
No, gravitational waves have not been detected in a meaningful way. Every search for them has been a failure, and a waste of money.--Andy Schlafly 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
Indirectly detecting them is not meaningful? many other scientists and i would beg to disagree. The same failures and indirect detection has been instrumental in discovering many of the waves that make up the EM spectrum. IN FACT, indirect detection of EM waves is the reason we know the curvature, and change in temperature of the universe. It is like being inside a boat with no way out in a choppy ocean, but not being able to look out and see the waves. You indirectly detect them using your inner ear, and balance. But simply because you can not directly put yourself in the water or are unable to develop a device, given your own technological knowhow, with which to detect the waves, does not mean that they do not exist. Gresavage 20:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
  1. Counterexample 4: "If you please, Mark, try quoting the actual scientific journal instead of the New York Times. Wikipedia is also not a source. Karajou 21:31, 5 May 2011 (EDT)" if the new york times is not a source (which it is not) then neither is msnbc. Please recite!
Not sure what the point of the objection is here.--Andy Schlafly 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
I was quoting karajou when he dismissed news articles as sources, msnbc is not a source and thus must be recited. There is no other way to explain it Gresavage 20:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
  1. Counterexample 5: This is not a citation. Requires recitation
  2. Counterexample 5: this is not true. Citation:;;
No explanation requires no rebuttal.--Andy Schlafly 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
The explanation is the citation. Read the articles and you will have your explanation. Gresavage 20:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
  1. Counterexample 6: This is clearly falsified by NgSmith and Toph in the talk forums. Citation:
No explanation requires no rebuttal.--Andy Schlafly 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
The explanation is the citation. Read the articles and you will have your explanation. Gresavage 20:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
  1. Counterexample 7: Falsified by NgSmith. Citation;
No explanation requires no rebuttal.--Andy Schlafly 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
The explanation is the citation. Read the articles and you will have your explanation. Gresavage 20:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
  1. Counterexample 8: It is common knowledge that general relativity incorporates a "flat universe". Citation:
Does relativity incorporate Newtonian mechanics also??? A flat universe is contrary to the basic claims of relativity.--Andy Schlafly 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
No it is not, i beg you to please read the citations. I put them there for a reason and your blatant disregard for them is becoming tiresome. Relativity incorporates principles of newtonian mechanics. However we understand most of newtonian mechanics to be a poor model for explaining things on the scale of which GR is talking. Just like GR is a poor model for the behavior of quantum particles. and newtonian mechanics is even worse. Gresavage 20:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
  1. Counterexample 9: General relativity is to Quantum mechanics as Force equations without friction are to ones that consider friction. However, i can not find valid enough sources to edit this counterexample.
No; quantum mechanics confounds and disproves relativity, as in the action-at-a-distance that exists in QM but is denied by relativity.--Andy Schlafly 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
as i have said before, quantum mechanics is a completely different scale than GR. GR is a poor model for quantum interactions. but it is a great model for most other things in the universe. I also could not find a source to back up that refutation, i was hoping that someone, with a better understanding of both GR and QM to provide them. Gresavage 20:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
  1. Counterexample 10: (action at a distance) entirely false. Citation:
No explanation requires no rebuttal. OK, this is getting tiresome. Please explain your very best points and we can discuss them.--Andy Schlafly 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
No sir, you are getting tiresome, please read the citations as they are incorporated for a very specific purpose. Gresavage 20:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
  1. Counterexample 12: gravitons are not part of general relativity this is general knowledge. Citation:
  2. Counterexample 14: (W13) This is possible in general relativity. Furthermore, solely because one scientist can't explain it, does not mean it is not explainable, in fact someone did provide an explanation. Citation:
  3. Counterexample 15: Irrelevant, even if the theory didn't lead to insights it does not detract from it's validity. However GR does have insights. Citation:;
  4. Counterexample 16: This is completely irrelevant, the standard mass of the kilogram has no bearing on the validity of general relativity because it is measured from a physical object and thus subject to variance. Whereas a standard measure of a meter, second, candella and others are absolute and unchanging definitions not subject to change
  5. Counterexample 17: (uniform temperature) Requires better citation. (primary source)
  6. Counterexample 18: (space should be smooth) Requires better citation. (primary source)
  7. Counterexample 19: This does not falsify the theory as a whole, or even majority, rewording should be considered as well as a better source.
  8. Counterexample 21: Citation required as well as disambiguation. Are you implying that GR predicts that it should be possible for black holes to "congeal" into existence?
  9. Counterexample 22: This is full of falsehood and speculation. Citation:
  10. Counterexample 23: Neither true nor relevant, and also reiteration of a previously stated point. Whether or not you can save lives has no bearing on the validity of a theory.
  11. Counterexample 24: (anisotropic mass) Citation desperately needed. Anisotropic mass is understood and accepted outside of GR. Citation:
  12. Counterexample 25: Citation needed. As well as the fact that general relativity breaks down at the quantum level. Just like newtons equations break down at the quantum level, and at the level of lets say, planets even, like for instance mercury. That does not mean it's not a valid theory for it's frame of reference. In fact it's commonly accepted that GR doesn't work at that size. (I believe) REGARDLES... CITATION NEEDED
  13. Counterexample 26: (conservative field) Citation needed. GR does not violate the definition of a conservative field. Where are you getting this conclusion?
  14. Counterexample 27: (Ehrenfest paradox) What? This does not disprove relativity. Citation:
  15. Counterexample 28: (Twin Paradox)
  16. Counterexample 29: The citation clearly explains how the clocks would not be off DUE to relativity, and explains the mechanism. So your point is disproved by your citation
  17. Counterexample 30: (Aether/higgs field) Citation Required!
  18. Counterexample 31: The dimension is not time, it is analogous to time though. Citation:;
  19. Counterexample 32: Speculation and needs citation
  20. Counterexample 34: Simply because we can't fully solve them does not detract from it's validity. This is like saying, because ancient egyptians didn't know how to do laplace transforms, laplace transforms must be false. The inability of people to fully comprehend something does not mean it is not valid.
  21. Counterexample 35: Not a counterexample. Citation:;

Partial Removal

I do not know why this page exists. General Relativity does not contradict the conservative ideals of this country. However, instead of refuting all the points by links (this has not worked in the past), I will explain a few of the simpler mistakes on my own. Although this page should be taken down, I realize that you would never allow me to do that. So I recommend that you at least take down these:

counterexample 6: Even an infinitesimal mass cannot get to c. Also, a massless particle has to go at c, since if it went slower, it would have no energy and thus not exist, which is a contradiction. Therefore, there is no discontinuity.

counterexample 7: Force is defined as dp/dt, or (change in momentum) / (change in time). Say, over a period of time, the force imparts a momentum p to the moving object. Since momentum in the perpendicular direction is initially 0, its final momentum in the perpendicular direction will be p. . If the new momentum is small, (the gamma factor in the perpendicular direction), = perpendicular velocity and m = rest mass. Thus the force will act on the rest mass.

counterexample 8: Actually, the results of an experiment provides good evidence of two predictions of general relativity: frame dragging and basic curvature. This is very recent and exciting news, so I couldn't resist adding one link:

counter example 16: Not sure what this has to do with relativity, and it is ambiguous. (So for now, a change, not deletion would be nice)

counterexample 24: The concept of inertia is ill-defined, but it is kind of like resistance to change in velocity. However, there is a specific direction chosen, the direction of motion. Thus, symmetry is broken, so some direction can be preferred. In another, unrelated, example (just to show that symmetry can be broken), imagine a river flowing fairly fast. It is harder to swim 100 feet upstream than 100 feet downstream. Although it's 100 feet either way, one direction is preferred.

counterexample 25: Actually, according to the relativistic formula , momentum is not strictly dependent on rest mass, but is dependent on energy as well. Since light has energy, it can have momentum under relativity.

counterexample 31: Vectors don't have unique inverses under dot or cross multiplication. However, you can multiply all vectors v by (|v| is the length of the vector) and get the unit vector in that direction. (Which you can do with time.)

counterexample 35: I found this image online, but it shows the idea. Each point (x, t) in the barns frame corresponds to a point in the ladder's frame (x', t'). I will say that it is intuitively weird. The point when the end of the ladder enters the barn is A. The point when the front of the ladder leaves the barn is B. A and B have the same time coordinate in the barn's rest frame, but, in the ladders frame, A has a latter time coordinate than B. - Added by Kitcher

You make some good points. Maybe the list ought to be divided into "physical anomalies related to relativity" and "counter-intuitive aspects of relativity".
If you adopt the philosophy that one counterexample disproves the theory, then it is not clear why so many need to be listed. It invites others to reason that if one of these 35 arguments is wrong, then the whole page is discredited.
The Gravity Probe B paper is still not posted. I am surprised that the project leaders made such a big splash over this, with no paper to back up what they say. RSchlafly 10:05, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

Mass and Momentum (25)

"Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum. " I'm confused how this is a counterexample to relativity. Relativity does say that anything traveling at the speed of light must have 0 rest mass, but it does not make the claim that something of zero mass has zero momentum. It's a rather famous equation that . Zero mass in the context of special relativity then simply implied that for massless particles. It's also true that the laws of electrodynamics require light to have momentum, but I'm confused, if you follow this line of reasoning is it trying to imply that light has mass given the premise of this counterexample? Photons have fits perfectly well in the context of relativity and is self-consistent as far as I'm aware. (Madblueplanet 09:01, 20 June 2011 (EDT))

It looks rather obvious that the person who wrote the list of alleged Einstein's errors interprets terms not in the same way as contemporary physicists would. Whoever set the list should consult it with a physicist freshly from school since many terms in common language don't need to have the same meaninig in physics as they had in Einstein's times. E.g. word "mass" denoted now by m, itself changed its meaning between Einstein's and contemporary times. It is presently the invariant mas while before, e.g. in "Feynman lectures on physics" was strictly relativistic mass while "invariant mass" had to be denoted which still causes endless arguments between physicists and engineers or chemists who each might use different conventions. It looks silly when alleged Einstein's error turns out to be due only to misunderstanding of a physical term. In Einstein's times photons, as today, had mass and only their , which today is written but only because idea of "mass" chaged, not its physics. JimJast 15:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Correcting example #3 (Pioneer "anomaly")

For many years I'm trying to publish in any scientific peer reviewed establishment journal (to avoid accusations of crankery) the news that according to physics of Einstein's general relativity the universe works slightly differently than scientific establishment assumes. The most important difference is that the so called "cosmological redshift" is not produced by expansion of universe but by an interesting effect of relativity of time, verifyiable with simple, almost Newtonian math, by any bright high shool student. This effect is time running slower in deep space than at (any) observer proportionally to exponent of ratio of the distance between observer and the point in deep space to so called "Einstein's radius of curvature of space". Equally important part of this effect is that it predicts Pioneer "anomaly" within one standard deviation being about as it is observed . I'm supplying here the paper that might support this bright high school student in his/her calculations of this effect that I call Hubble time dilation and consider it being overlooked by all the Big Bang aficionados insisting on expansion of universe against better judgement of Einstein.

A sad part of this story is that Einstein was right in his assumption that the universe is stationary (non expanding) and his critics supporting LeMaitre wrong but Einstein gave up arguing with idiots to be able to work peacefully on other projects. And now we have a lame hypothesis of Big Bang which is physically impossible (for its creation of energy from nothing), and scientific establishment who refuses for years to peer review papers supporting Einstein's original idea accidentally turning out right. As Einstein told a journalist asking how to make a discovery: "Very simple, when all the wise men decide that something can't be calculated, comes an ignorant who does not know it, and calculates it." What just happened in my case, but I might gladly show my calculations to any intelligent high school student to prove that he or she can make them too, despite that all the wise men couldn't. JimJast 15:53, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Correcting example #1

Contrary to the above equation, the original Einsteinian equation was , where is "Ricci tensor" and is "Stress-energy tensor", which is much simpler and does not contain that was introduced by authors of 1973 "Gravitation" to suggest the need for expansion of the universe but turned out to be not necessary when "Hubble time dilation" (HTD) entered the picture in 1985 and explained the redshift in stationary "Einstein's universe" [1].


  1. See "Einsteinian gravitation".

A point of view on this article

Hi! First of all, please excuse me for my awful english. I'm a huge fan of Conservapedia in general, and of this article in particular: I've found the points 11 and 12 of this list (the "action-at-a-distance" points) incredibily inspired, so I use sometimes these points as sign at the end of posts in some forums.

First of all, as I've seen during my physics studies, there is no such thing as "liberal physics", just physics. Physicists can have different opinions on specific topics, and it's a good thing: finding who is wrong is the only way to make scientific progress. When a new phenomenon is discovered, the first thing to do is to find out if the known physics laws can describe it: this may be called a "conservative" point of view. But if this is not possible new laws have to be found: you may call them "liberal laws".

The special theory of relativity, though, is not object of debates, so actually the physicists are conservative in beliving that a lot of phenomena can be explained using the relativity theory.

This article pretends to be a page about science. Well, it turns out that it is a (wonderful) pure nonsense page (I really love nonsense!). There are conceptual errors, absurdities, even miracles (I hope that you won't call them "scientific proofs")... for example, points 7, 11, 29, 31, 32 are all manifestly wrong, as everyone with a little knowledge of physics can confirm. Point 13: no one is searching gravitons. Point 25: if an object is moving in one direction, then physics should distinguish among the directions (and, in fact, it does).

The classic aether does not exist.

Not all the points are wrong, though. The necessity of dark matter and dark energy in the current cosmological models it's a problem well known to the experts. There are two possibilities: one can prove experimentally that these entities exists and/or general relativity is wrong on large scales. My opinion (but it's just an opinion) is that the dark matter exists (it has been observed in galaxy collisions, for example), but general relativity has to be modified on large scales (maybe a quantum theory of gravitation could help?).

So: most of the points are trash. Some of the points are quite right indeed (not the Bible ones, at least if you want to write an article about science). And, for the sake of correctness, someone should write a page with phenomena explained by relativity that aren't explained in the framework of classical mechanics and electrodynamics.

This is only my POV, obviously. But if Conservapedia wants to be a source of knowledge (regardless the "conservative" or "liberal" point of view) you have to write facts, not nonsense. I'm a Conservapedia fan for the nonsense, so this advice is against my interests :P

p.s. I see that my advice is, in fact, the first commandment of Conservapedia.

Have a nice day, MM87 08:18, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

You say, "there is no such thing as 'liberal physics,' just physics." But obviously an atheistic view of the world is going to lean towards atheistic explanations, no matter how implausible. Moreover, liberals are often unwilling to admit that they are wrong about anything, leaving them clinging to theories for decades after they should have been rejected. See, e.g., Piltdown Man.--Andy Schlafly 13:15, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
... and so? Physics, and science in general, is the study of interconnections among natural phenomena, not between natural and supernatural ones. This other thing is called "metaphysics" ("beyond-nature"). Do you see? Even the ancient greeks knew the difference.
But this is not the point. You're probably the first and main writer of this page, so I'll talk directly to you. Do you care if some of the points of the article are wrong of not? How did you verify the correctness of the sentences?
(Curiosity: if you don't think that the theory of relativity gives a good description of the world, how do you explain the relativistic effects... without relativity? I mean, for example, the costance of the speed of light, or the different mean lives of instable particles when they are at rest or in motion). --MM87 15:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
An example of atheistic bias in science is the view of some that evolution must somehow be true regardless of the facts. A similar attitude is taken towards the Theory of Relativity. But the Counterexamples to Relativity are overwhelming. Yes, the counterexamples are true.--Andy Schlafly 19:54, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
Andy, you have not answered, and we're talking about Relativity, not Evolution... Why do you say that these counterexamples are true? How have you verified these statements? Did some physics professor, or more generally, a relativity expert, told you? Are they written on some physics book? (I doubt it) --MM87 20:33, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
The counterexamples are well-supported by citations or obvious logic. The internet is popular for learning because books have limitations of being outdated and subject to biased censorship. If you want to limit learning to what is written in books, rather than using logic as well as the most recently available information, then why are you even discussing science on the internet?--Andy Schlafly 21:39, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Ok, let's use logic, then :D Point 32: given a four-vector pµ=(p0,p1,p2,p3), the inverse vector is defined as qµ=(-p0,-p1,-p2,-p3). As you can easily check, pµ+qµ is the null four-vector, and this holds for every pµ. A negative time component is not absurd, it just relates with events happened in the past. This is math, not physics, ok? It is true because the Lorentz vectors are defined this way.

Another example: it is written, or seems so to a reader, that relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatibile (point 20). This is not true at all, since relativistic quantum theories like Quantum Electrodynamics are the most successful theories in the history of physics. They work in curved spacetime too, if you keep fixed the geometry. The absurdities emerge when you try to "animate" the gravity field, ant it's an open research field.

Another one: the Higgs field (point 31) has nothing to do with aether. The classical aether was meant to be the media in which light propagates, the Higgs field not. In fact, the light propagates in vacuum. I want to stress this point: aether does not exist, it is known by more than a century. (and I hope that in a couple of years will be found out that the Higgs field doesn't exist, too)

This is one of the best (16): "The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics." Relativity is the skeleton of all the theories that describe all the nature's forces. For example, antimatter is a consequence of relativity. It seems that your scientific internet-based knowledge is quite updated... (and, yes, relativity is useful. Try thinking to the positron-electron tomography). I'll ask you again: do you think that the speed of light is constant for every observer or varies? --MM87 07:41, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Since Schlafly is not responding, I'm asking to every other user: why this page is still unedited? I remember to you all the first commandment (and the laughs that this page causes all over the world :D). I don't want to edit the page without the consense of other users (Schlafly in primis), so I think I'll wait... --MM87 16:40, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
The entry is supported by citations and logic. To take your highest-ranking criticism (point 16), the fact is that the theory of relativity has yielded nothing of value. Contrast that with real physical insights, like quantum mechanics, which have produced tremendous progress.--Andy Schlafly 20:12, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
This is you opinion, not the opinion expressed, for example here, here, here (do you think lasers are useless?) or here (the mathematical tools of general relativity used to understand metamaterials... some times ago I attended a conference in which explained why the electrons in graphene could be well described with general relativity-like formulas).
So, do not repeat "citations and logic" again and answer these easy questions: do you think that pµ+qµ is the null vector or not? (It's math easily handled even by children...) And the most important question: do you think that the speed of light is a constant or not? --MM87 07:50, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
Since user ASchlafly is not giving appropriate answers, I'm going to delete a few entries, those corresponding uniquely to pure fantasy and without citations: (7), (8), (13), (16), (26), (32), (33). This is a pretty... conservative choice. I don't think that any user (except ASchlafly) disagrees with the deletion, but if it's not the case please write here why any of these points is worth consideration. --MM87 07:37, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
I fail to see how any of the above equals a consensus on the changes you propose. In fact it looks to me like there's a profound disagreement on these points. That being so, I'm reverting your changes. Please don't make major changes to controversial articles without consensus. Jcw 08:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Ok, fair enough. So, how many users here think that these points are correct? (And why? Any citations?) And how many disagree with that point? I'll start giving proof of citations of these points:

(7) The limit is not taken in E=γmc² (m is the invariant mass) but in E² = (pc)² + (mc²)². If m=0 then E=|p|c: the ratio between the magnitude of the speed '|v|' and the speed of light 'c' is given by (|p|c)/E, so |v|=c. There is no discontinuity: these formulas can be found on every basic relativity textbook.

(8) The relativistic one, but it's a coincidence. The longitudinal inertia is proportional to γ³m (which is not the relativistic mass), the transverse inertia to γm (which is the relativistic mass). Inertia, rest mass and relativitstica mass have different meanings, they coincide only when the particle is much slower than light. Please note that same effect is also present in the electromagnetic theory (inertia caused by the self-interaction between a charged object and his own electromagnetic field) without using relativity. See, for example: Lorentz, H.A. (1899), "Simplified Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Systems", Proc. Roy. Soc. Amst.: 427-442.

(13) I've never heard about an experiment that aimed to the direct search of gravitons. Physicists don't expect to find gravitons in particle or astroparticle experiments, their theoretical (tree-level) cross section is too small (please excuse me for the jargon). This entry needs citations from academic sources, but I doubt strongly they exist at all.

(16) An example: Relativistic Field Theories (see Quantum field theory). Some Nobel prizes in physics were given for work on RFTs.

(26) As I demostrated before, E=|p|c. (E means energy, |p| means the magnitude of the momentum)

(32) Given any 4-vector p^µ, the opposite 4-vector is defined as q^µ=-p^µ. Negative times are related with events happened in the past, the opposite 4-vector has noting to do with the time arrow or the second law of thermodynamics. (What does "the inverse of time" mean, exactly?!)

(33) Definitely not. The light speed has been experimentally proven costant from more than a century: currently there is a plethora of experiments giving bounds on speed of light variations with direction or frequency (type "speed of light" in Google Scholar), so the aether can't exist. (there are currently theories that predict variations in the speed of light like the "doubly special relativity", but at present time they're not supported by experiments).

p.s. I shouldn't remark that Schlafly, not me (or all the others before me), should prove his affermations, since mine are mathematical truth or facts that anyone can easily verify (or math that anyone can verify by himself). --MM87 08:51, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

(7) as velocity approaches c, momentum becomes undefined rather than approaching the momentum of light
(8) orthogonality breaks down if it is the relativistic mass, which would create logical problems
(13) see [8] (time taken to find - 2 minutes on the internet)
(16) Nobel Prizes are politicized - witness Barack Obama winning one despite accomplishing nothing. A true theory becomes the basis for real insights. Relativity has not.
(26) your point does not address the claim.
That's enough for now. Do you still have any objections to counterexamples 1-6, or 9-12?--Andy Schlafly 16:43, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
(7) That's what you say, but you haven't proved it yet. On the other hand, I proved that momentum is perfectly well defined.
P.s. another proof, taking the m->0 limit in E=γmc^2. It can be done, keeping E and c fixed, while m->0. You see that γ must go to infinity: well, it means that , or . is finite in this limit and the momentum reads .
(8) Which logical problems? Are you disturbed by the fact that orthogonal and transverse masses are different? A disturb is not a concectual problem at all. Why don't you link some scientific article saying that this is a logical problem that proves inconsistency of the theory?
(13) You should pay attention to the abstracts. This guy reports limits on observations that could be made with experiments designed to search for gravitational waves (such as LIGO and VIRGO), not gravitons (this is another point). So, this is not a valid source. Can you tell me an experiment designed to catch gravitons?
(16) I agree on Obama's nobel: peace Nobels are definitely politicized. This is not so true for the other prizes, though. Now you have to cite some article saying that the standard model, or every other relativity-based theory, isn't a great insight: as before, you say that but you don't prove that.
(26) Or maybe you cannot read formulas: I'll repeat for the sake of clearness. If m=0 then E=|p|c, so that massless particles can have nonzero momentum if and only if they have nonzero energy: they're directly proportional. Actually, a photon with energy E has a momentum equal to E/c.
Don't be impatient, you have to justify these statements first (don't forget (32) and (33)). --MM87 07:20, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
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 ? I can easily do it.
(7) Your analysis assumes that E is fixed, but that's not what point (7) states.
(8) If a force in an orthogonal direction can affect inertia in the original direction, then orthogonality breaks down and lots of physical assumptions are violated. Can you cite any authority for your claim?
(13) LIGO is attempting to detect the existence of gravitons, as are other multi-million dollar tests.
(16) If the Nobel Peace Prize is politicized -- and you concede it is -- then the other prizes are going to suffer from similar politicization. How else would you explain the shocking humiliation of Fred Hoyle shortly after he criticized a claim of evolutionists, by giving the Nobel Prize in physics to his understudy on his project while omitting him? Please don't say you weren't aware of this.
Why are you focusing on items so far down the list? What about counterexamples 1-6, and 9-12? I hope you will concede that it takes only one counterexample to disprove Relativity.--Andy Schlafly 21:51, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
(7) Well, your observation means only that you can't do limits properly. I can teach you if you want. (Have you studied math in college?)
(8) In a certain sense you're correct: "standard" ortogonality breaks down because the metric is not Euclidean but Minkowskian. I made the calculus by myself on the basis of my rational mechanics and special relativity course book (which is in Italian), and I have cited Lorentz (1899, well before Einstein's theory). The same calculus is made here, but I think you won't accept it ;-) Unfortunately I have not textbooks in english about special relativity dynamics... I'll give you a reference asap.
(13) The acronym LIGO stands for Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, not Laser Interferometer Graviton Observatory. I've asked you for direct searches. If they find waves with peculiar features maybe there is some model that explains these features in terms of gravitons, but it is a quite remote possibility.
(16) Really, I didn't knew it. Neither I care, of course. You are clinging to Nobels while I am saying the relativity is essential in the standard model, which basically explains almost all the particle physics experiments currently made. Remove the hands from your ears!
I'm focusing on these items because I want to make productive discussions and, after that, the deletion of the points considered. For example, if you think that points 1-6 and 9-12 are sufficient, you can delete all the others. You can surely delete (7-8-13-26-32-33) and merge (1) and (13), we'll talk about (1) later (miracles first!). (no, in my opinion that list does not contain any valid counterexample. But general relativity is far from being safe from this point of view: I told you that not all the points are totally wrong...)--MM87 08:13, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
I've been patiently addressing your questions, but you didn't fully answer mine: do you concede that it takes only one counterexample to disprove relativity?
Your response to point (16) speaks volumes. The Nobel prizes are heavily politicized ... all of them. To claim that one prize is politicized but another is not is unpersuasive. Anyone who publicly criticizes relativity can forget about ever winning a Nobel prize in anything, or even getting tenure anywhere. That's politics, not science, and that's the reality. Hopefully you can at least admit that.
On point (7), I think there is circularity in your argument, assuming what it is at issue by insisting that E remain constant.--Andy Schlafly 20:05, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
It's not so easy as you think. To invalidate a theory with an experiment you have to carefully consider every other aspect that could influence the measure. If a theory works good, but a new experiment finds that in some conditions the theory doesn't work anymore, the experiments has not falsified the theory, but only proven that this theory has a finite range of applications. Examples are Newtonian mechanics, classical electromagnetism, even nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. Today general relativity has not been proved correct on big scales, while it works correctly within the solar system. Special relativity is thought not to have similar (distance) limits, but may have corrections due to quantum gravity, which today are only conjectured and not seen experimentally. I'll tell you a secret: "true" theories do not exist, and all the theories have limits of applicability. Today we don't know the limits of both relativity theories, because they agree with all current experiments.
(16) The truth is that who doesn't know relativity is ignoring 100 years of history of physics.
Andy, let me explain to you some math stuff. Suppose you have a function of two variables, e.g. f(x,y). Suppose you want to change the value of the first variabile: what does the second? Well, you have to decide it: you can keep y to a fixed value, or you can change y as x varies: in this case y become a function of x: y=g(x). The original expression becomes f(x,g(x)) and is a 1-variable function, that you can call h(x). In other words, you have to specify a trajectory in the (x,y) plane. This is also the way limits work: you have to specify the trajectory.
In our case we want to send m to zero. And the other variabiles (energy, momentum, speed)? Since the relation E²=(pc)²+(mc²)² holds, energy and momentum are not indipendent. If you vary m, E and p cannot be both costant. A possible choice is keeping fixed E and vary p, but you can also vary E keeping p fixed. Or you can vary both, specifying a function E(m) or p(m), as before. You might think that the final result can depend on the limit choice, and this is indeed the case for E and p. BUT, when m=0 you have E²=(pc)² for every path choice. A a consequence, the speed of the particle equals the speed of light for any energy or momentum value, since the relation v=c(pc/E) holds for every mass. If you take the limit keeping p fixed you'll obtain exactly the same speed for the particle. No circularities.
Andy, what will you do with these points? --MM87 08:58, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Attempt at Helping the Consensus 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 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.

SamHB 21:36, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

Sam, logic and science are not determined by "consensus". Of course, for a variety of reasons, many people dare not question liberal theories. Anyone who hopes to win a Nobel Prize, for example, would be foolish to criticize Relativity because that would prevent him from ever winning the prize. But here we're more concerned about the truth than what others may think.
I reviewed your points 1-5 and was not persuaded by any of them. For example, gravity waves do not exist. Liberals should stop wasting the public's money looking for them. There's no point in proceeding to your criticism of other points, because just one counterexample is enough to disprove Relativity. Hopefully you'll at least concede that.--Andy Schlafly 22:15, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
Moving further down your list, your response on point 6 is particularly unpersuasive. The increasingly precise data disprove the theory. It's that simple. If scientists have "moved on" in an attempt to avoid addressing this discrepancy, then that's politics rather than good science.--Andy Schlafly 00:10, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
SamHB, I really appreciate your intervent. Andy, you're right, logic and science are not determined by consensus, but if someone's logic fails someone else should tell him, don't you think? Why are you so firm in keeping this page in this form when there are (lots of) people who knows what are they talking about? --MM87 08:29, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
SamHB, MM87, and Andy: there is a very good reason why this page should be kept. The reason is just not to repeat the same objections against relativity over and over. It may be better organized but not by removing silly objections but explaining them slowly point by point by a competent physicists (possibly an experimentalist, of Feynman type, if such types are still around). As e.g. I tried to explain objection #3 (Pioneer anomaly). Potentially wrong explanation but also turning attention of "relativists" (if they read this page) to the existence of competing explenation that otherwise may be ignored. If they don't read it then they should since it may contain some good ideas that may help them in keeping science at a proper level. E.g. #3 may seem to be explained but it may be also a prejudice based on a possibly false assumption that the universe is expanding. Which may be just an optical illusion as I try to point out elsewhere. This illusion is within 1 standard deviation off the "Pioneer anomaly". Of course it might be a coincidence but may be an indication that the expansion of the universe is really an illusion. As all other "coincidences", including quasars, non symmetric metric tensor of flat spacetime, and impossibility to create energy from nothing, seem to indicate and yet being all kept in the "standard cosmological model". JimJast 19:12, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
Jim, the standard cosmological model is not safe from being falsified (however, which theory is?), and the are a lot of competiting models (like yours). This page is not meant to describe the problems of the current cosmological model, but to discredit relativity in toto, and who wrote this page clearly does not know anything about relativity. I think that a new page with "open problems in cosmology" or "open problems in physics" would be warmly welcome, but must be written by some expert in the field. --MM87 09:17, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Relativity is a mathematically complete system that is either true or false in toto. Pretending that Relativity can be true despite a counterexample against it is like saying that a number can be partially prime.
The problem, of course, is that no one who wants tenure, a Nobel Prize, or even self-esteem within the liberal university system dares admit that Relativity might not be true. That alone is telling: if Relativity were true, then there would not be the need for it to be propped up by political pressure.--Andy Schlafly 14:27, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
"Propped up by political pressure"? Maybe you are talking about string theory...
Newtonian mechanics is a mathematically complete system that is either true or false in toto. So is the Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. From your point of view, they're both totally wrong, since there is a huge number of counterexamples (they aren't even compatibile each other), but physicists teach these theories to students everyday. Why don't you attack them in the same way as you attack relativity? --MM87 15:14, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
That's not true about Newtonian mechanics. Its exponents can be tweaked and its equations revised based on observation. Not so for Relativity.
Liberals already teach that Newtonian mechanics is fundamentally incorrect, so there is little reason to add to that (often false) criticism. In contrast, liberals insist that Relativity must be true and they punish anyone who dares claim otherwise. That needs to be challenged, but don't expect anyone who is a university grad student or professor wannabee to dare to do so. His career will be over if he utters any criticism of Relativity.--Andy Schlafly 15:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Where have you read that this is not true about Newtonian Mechanics? Academic sources, please.
With "liberals" are you referring also to non-physicists? Because, as you can easily imagine, their opinions don't have much value... --MM87 15:43, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
I'm referring to academic physicists - a very liberal group indeed. Probably 80% or more of them voted for Obama, for example. Do you doubt it?
The advance of the perihelion of Mercury (point 6) can be explained in Newtonian mechanics by tweaking the exponent of distance in the basic gravity equation. But no amount of tweaking is possible in Relativity to make the theory fit the data. So the liberals simply ignore the most recent data, and censor any criticism of Relativity based on this.--Andy Schlafly 20:00, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
No, I think that most of US physicists are liberals, too. A lot of them are also atheists or agnostics. But I simply don't see the link between liberalism, or moral relativitsm, or whathever you want, and the physical theory of relativity. I don't see it because it doesn't exist. Physical laws are purely a reflection of nature's laws: if you don't like relativity, well, you don't like the way nature behaves. This has nothing to do with humans behaviour or politics. While in other "sciences" (such as economics and psychology) there are a lot of contrasting paradigms, in physics experiments rules. A lot of paradigms (such as "all is made of matter", "movement is absolute" and things like that) were abandoned in the history of science because of experiments (I don't think this is true for economics, for example), not politics. This mechanism stops when theory is not comparable with experiments, such in the string theory case: in this case, research is driven in the direction of the mainstream thought for non-scientifical reasons (as you was saying before talking about relativity, today - or since some years ago - every young theoretical particle physicist in US had to study string theory to have the chance to have an academic career). But this is definitely not the case for Relativity, since the experimental proofs are overwhelming.
Ok, maybe is possible to modify Newton's gravity law in order to explain the perihelion shift of Mercury. I did not verify this, but this time I'll trust you. Good. What about the speed of light? And what about the lifetime of particles near the speed of light? (don't forget to answer to the other points with reliable sources... or deleting points 7-8-13-16-26-32-33) --MM87 07:30, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
The reality is that Relativity is not based on observations of nature, and never has been. It's a mathematical theory and a worldview that liberals would like nature to obey. But nature doesn't obey it. The mathematical theory came first and for a century people have been trying to fit it to the data. The fit isn't there, but liberals like the political effect of the theory so they don't permit criticism of it. Can you cite anyone who won a Nobel Prize after criticizing Relativity? Robert H. Dicke is an example of a great physicist who was denied the Nobel Prize because he dared criticize the liberal theory of Relativity.--Andy Schlafly 20:14, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
Quick question (from someone who doesn't know science all to well) what is the "political effect" of the theory of relativity? MaxFletcher 20:23, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
It is true that there are Einstein biographers who claim that he invented relativity from pure thought, without attention to experiment. But it is not true that mathematical theory came first. Relativistic mass was already being tested in 1901, before Einstein. All of the original relativity papers cited experimental evidence. Eg, Minkowski said relativity was "grown on experimental physical grounds". See also my blog.[9] RSchlafly 01:13, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

@MaxFletcher: I've never noticed "political effects" of Relativity, at least in Italy.

@Aschlafly: In addition to RSchlafly's answer, let me ask you again (for the third or fourth time, I think): do you belive that the speed of light is costant for every observer or not? If the answer is not, you are ignoring hundreds of experiments that proved it beyond any reasonable doubt. If you don't trust all these experiments, you should believe that not only relativity, but every physical theory is flawed in this way: how can you trust physicists on, for example, quantum mechanics, or any other physical theory, if you think that they falsified so many relativity experiments?

A lot of scientists criticize relativity every day (both special and general). The difference between you and them is that they admit that relativity works rather well under all the actual tests, as it is an approximation of other theories (today untested). Relativity can't be completely right, but today works. --MM87 08:30, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

Poincare developed many of the challenging aspects of Relativity as a mathematical theory that he thought probably did not represent nature. Very little of Relativity, if any of it, is based on observation. Generally the theory came first, and then liberals (like Arthur Eddington) fudged the data to try to make it fit the theory. Today relativists simply stop reporting on the data as it diverges from the theory (e.g., perihelion advance of Mercury, and the binary pulsar).
I doubt that the speed of light has been constant throughout history, and I doubt that it is constant for all observers. But note that Relativity is based on more assumptions than that. It also assumes that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference in the universe are physically equivalent, which is particularly implausible.--Andy Schlafly 20:40, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
You're really hard to convince! SamHB 22:45, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
Poincare certainly thought that relativity represented nature, and relied on experiments. The experiments were: Michelson-Morley, the first order aether drift experiments, the tests of Maxwell's theory, such as magnetic induction, and the measurements of relativistic mass. These were all done before 1905. It is a myth that Einstein created relativity without experimental observation, and I thoroughly debunk it on my blog. RSchlafly 00:36, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
You're defining Relativity very broadly to include Maxwell's equations, which of course were developed (and observed) long before the mathematical theory of relativity. Yes, I'm sure that Poincare accepted Maxwell's equations, as did Robert H. Dicke and other modern critics of Relativity.
I looked for a quote I recall seeing about Poincare expressing skepticism that Relativity was physically true rather than being merely a mathematical theory, but I couldn't find it (yet).--Andy Schlafly 00:52, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
The important point is that relativity is compatible with Maxwell's equations while classical mechanics is not. So if you accept classical mechanics you cannot have Maxwell's equations, but with relativity you can. --MatthewQ 02:11, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
Walter Kaufmann did experiments measuring the relativistic mass starting in 1901, and at one point he declared that the experiments favor a rival theory from Max Abraham. I think that Lorentz and Poincare conceded that these experiments, if confirmed, could prove Relativity wrong. Poincare did express skepticism that the aether was physically true. Also, there are Einstein biographers who concede that Poincare had all the Relativity formulas before Einstein, but insist on crediting Einstein because they claim that Poincare never understood Relativity. (I think that it is pretty crazy to say that someone could derive all of the formulas correctly and not understand them.) Perhaps you saw something connected to one of these matters.
Yes, nearly everyone defined Relativity to include Maxwells equations. Einstein certainly did. To him, the whole point of special relativity was to get a better understanding of Maxwells equations. Maxwells theory was the first relativistic theory, and Maxwell was the first relativist. I don't know how anyone could reject relativity without rejecting nearly everything we know about electromagnetism. RSchlafly 03:53, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
I agree with your point about Poincare developing and understanding the equations. Poincare was perhaps one of the top twenty geniuses of all time. But I also think he was smart enough to be skeptical about whether the mathematical theory described physical reality!
It's a common misconception that Relativity explains all of Maxwell's equations. In fact, Relativity is contradicted by an induction experiment, which I've added as counterexample #36, with a reference. I've seen at least one other paper talking about this problem, but of course most American (liberal) academics avoid talking about it.--Andy Schlafly 10:19, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
Your reference says, "it is obvious that the electric filed directions in these two graphs are opposite, which is the inevitable result because Einstein haven’t pointed out clearly which one is the true moving and which one is the false one.", and that a followup paper will answer explanation is correct. Of course Einstein did not say which one is truly moving because Relativity teaches that motion is relative. The article is incoherent nonsense. Magnetic induction is explained in every textbook since Faraday. Poincare explained it also. RSchlafly 12:03, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
Again, you can't have Newtonian mechanics AND Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations aren't invariant under Galilean transformations, while they are under Lorentz transformations (as mentioned, that's how they were actually first discovered). Also, quantum electrodynamics is the most accurate theory we have and it combines special relativity, quantum mechanics AND electromagnetism. --MatthewQ 15:10, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

This will be my final posting here. I apologize for its length.

Of course, no one is suggesting that the truth of a scientific theory is determined by polls. MM87 wasn't asking for a poll so that the issue of relativity could be settled. He was asking whether there was any consensus among Conservapedia editors of their positions on the matter. And he noted the extremely small number of interested people. As one of that very small number, I thought I would reply.

The premise of this page is that theories can be refuted by counterexamples, and that even one counterexample would do it. This is true, but the counterexamples need to be much more compelling than the 35 items listed. Several of the items are are the form "this is complicated" (9, 18, 19, 20, 21), or "I don't understand this" (22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32), or "many textbooks explain it badly" (7, 8, 25, 26), or "there is some phenomenon somewhere that relativity doesn't explain" (2, 3, 4, 5, 14, 15, 17).

Remember that the actions of Nobel committees or tenure committees or conference committees, or the perception that "liberals like it", as much as we might disagree with them, don't determine the correctness of a scientific theory. Experiments and observations do.

An example of something that refutes a theory would be an observation that is clearly at odds with the predictions of the theory, and that can't be explained away. For example, observations of planetary motion refuted the Ptolemaic theory of epicycles and more epicycles. (Actually it was the increasing number of epicycles needed to fit the observations, and the Copernican theory, that started the process. Occam's Razor finished the job.)

So what kind of observation would actually refute relativity? Failure of the time dilation or length shortening of special relativity would do it, as would failure of gravitational time dilation. Failure of light bending would do it, that is, no bending, or bending at 0.875 second instead of 1.75. Failure of the Shapiro effect would do it. Failure of the Lense-Thirring effect would call it into question, though the observations of the GPB are near the limits of our ability to measure.

Failure of planetary precession would do it. But let me say something about that, since it has been discussed at length on many pages. The Mercury measurements are very "noisy", making it not a good test if one is looking for incredible accuracy, that is, better than 42.98 second. The actual precession is something like 5600, with an enormous amount of noise from other planets, solar oblateness, etc. If one really wanted to claim that relativity is refuted because the 42.98 figure doesn't match exactly, one would have to go through all the sources of noise much more meticulously than anyone has. One would also have to take into account asteroids that haven't been discovered yet—keep in mind that a new "trojan" asteroid at one of Earth's Lagrange points was discovered only a few weeks ago. And remember, the Yarkovsky effect was undiscovered for years, as was the reflection of infrared radiation off the back of the Pioneer antenna dish. Can you really say that you know, exactly, all the forces acting on Mercury? Did you consider the frame-dragging effect from the Sun's rotation or the Yarkovsky effect? My guess is that this has never been done. There are much "cleaner" measurements that scientists can make than tracking all possible influences on Mercury's motion. Examples of "clean" tests are the quasar measurements, the pulsar measurements, and the Shapiro effect.

Speaking of other ways of explaining the precession non-relativistically, Andy refers, above, again, to the "Newtonian exponent tweaking". This is the Asaph Hall / Simon Newcomb hypothesis. It was refuted, by actual observations, 100 years ago. Please see the analyses that I wrote here and here. The latter contains some pretty graphs that I made and that JacobB uploaded for me.

Andy is quite right in that general relativity does not have "tweakable parameters" to alter planetary precession. Precession is determined by the planet's speed and the speed of light, which is, of course, not tweakable. If one were to change the number appearing in Einstein's equation, it would just tighten or loosen the orbit; the precession would not change. Changing the "cosmological constant", that is, R00, would do the same thing.

SamHB 22:45, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

The Mercury measurements disagree with Relativity by more than the margin of error. Due to the political pressure to prop up Relativity, scientists have simply stopped publishing and discussing the increasingly precise data.--Andy Schlafly 00:52, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
Sorry Andy, but you've been repeatedly shown to be wrong on this point. And can I ask what political pressure to prop up relativity? If I recall correctly the last government to comment on relativity was Hitlers, which regarded it in a highly negative manner. I think that the disgusting phrase used was "Jewish physics". Darkmind1970 15:00, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

Open problems in cosmology

Sam, MM87 is right so why not to use his advice and open a new section in which some of us try to work with cosmology rather than with relativity alone.

IMHO the main open problem in cosmology is the problem whether the universe is expanding or not. According to opinion of guys who look for careers in cosmology it is expanding (based on doctored Einstein's equation ) but in reality may be stationary , where is what I call "Hubble tensor". As it follows from his original equation that contained an error removed by Hilbert (mentioned also by MM87, non zero trace) and also patched later with cosmological constant to keep his Field Equation stable.

So let's analyze the situation in cosmology: Why its "standard model" still contains the cosmological constant that Einstein considered "the biggest blunder of my life"?

My answer is this: because general relativity is most likely not Einstein's (a Patent Office clerk) but his wife's, Mileva Marić (a physicist way better than her husband), who as a woman didn't have a chance to publish such work as relativity and might have reason to be angry at her husband and so didn't want to show him the obvious way of getting rid of his cosmological constant (which doesn't exist anyway so it was not any loss to science).

Now, If I, a sculptor and an engineer knowing practicaly no tensor calculus (and almost no English) can show what Mileva Marić (a physicists and an astronomer, knowing "Einstein's theory" in and out) didn't tell her husband, would it be credible enough that it might have happened this way? And that the universe is really not expanding. As I keep saying since 1985, similarly as Mileva Marić, not being able to publish a paper, that the only referee who saw it couldn't falsify and so recommended its rejection only on faith in expansion. Would it? JimJast 15:34, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

Better than opening a new section, of this article, on cosmological problems, I would favor creating new pages for explaining/discussing it. SamHB 22:47, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
Agree. What about "Problems in Cosmology". How do you like my story about Mileva Marić? JimJast 16:18, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
I think that you are mixed up. Maric probably did help Einstein understand special relativity. But they had been divorced for a long time when the work was being published on general relativity, and she is not known to have had anything to to do with it. RSchlafly 00:25, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
It is not an "open problem" in cosmology whether the universe is expanding or not. It's accepted by cosmologists that it is (Google 'Hubble's law' for instance).
Einstein's motivation for the cosmological constant was indeed a mistake. He wanted a static universe and put the cosmological constant as a repellent term to explain why, if gravity is attractive, everything isn't just lumped up together. This doesn't work however, since the equilibrium created by adding the term isn't stable. Later physicists took a new interpretation of the cosmological constant as the energy density of the vacuum. It turns out Einstein's mistake wasn't adding a cosmological constant, but not putting it on the other side of his equation with the stress–energy tensor!
Anyway, the cosmological constant is still used because data suggest it exists. I highly doubt cosmologists have stuck to it because of the treachery of Einstein's wife. --MatthewQ 19:06, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
'', where is what I call "Hubble tensor""
It's mentioned here that the the "Hubble tensor" is anti-symmetric. If so, this equation doesn't make sense since the stress-energy tensor, , is symmetric. The only way for the above equation to hold is if the "Hubble Tensor" and the stress-energy tensor are both zero ( and ). Actually, since in the linked article the "Hubble Tensor" is defined as the antisymmetric part of Ricci tensor it is exactly zero. --MatthewQ 19:44, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

Solenoid example

First of all, the reference is to a post on a forum. This doesn't seem like a reliable source.

Second, the poster presupposes a magnet going the speed of light. As mentioned in the forum, this violates relativity right off the back. You cannot presume relativity is false and then go to conclude relativity is false. That's circular reasoning. --MatthewQ 23:47, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

Physics journals won't publish evidence -- even indisputable data -- if it is counter to Relativity. It's like expecting the Journal of the KGB to print an article criticizing communism. It's not going to happen. So the best of the public, including internet forum, play an important role.
The logical contradiction arises if the solenoid is going near the speed of light also, something Relativity is supposed to allow.--Andy Schlafly 00:00, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
So when is it okay to cite a forum discussion here at CP? Anyway, there was no evidence whatsoever in the citation. It was just a though experiment that presumed relativity was false right at the beginning.
Second, the thought experiment explicitly says at the speed of light, not near:
"make the magnet move with the speed of light"
"moving the other one with the speed of light"
--MatthewQ 00:15, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
This is logic. No citation is needed at all to make a logical point. The flaw in Relativity exists at a velocity near the speed of light, as I said.--Andy Schlafly 00:34, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
The post on the forum says it moves at the speed of light. If the example is modified to "near the speed of light" then I don't see a problem. Can you please explain the contradiction? --MatthewQ 00:55, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

Question about relativity

I asked this somewhere else but no one seems to have noticed my question so I'll ask again: Andy was talking about political pressure to support relativity (something like that anyway) so I just wondering what political element there is in regards to relativity? MaxFletcher 01:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)