Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay: "We Are atheism" campaign faces some challenges

2011-12-06T00:52:05Z

ClearView2011:

Conservative, I can see how you link atheism to obesity and that global atheism is shrinking, however the devil's advocate in me also knows that globally there's increasing rates of obesity. In fact the United States, one of the most religious countries, is also one of the most obese. How can this be? [[User:FelixD|FelixD]] 15:59, 5 December 2011 (EST)

== Numbers ==

I'm not too sure about this essay because it gives atheists an opportunity to score some points. Both QE! and "We are atheism" have Facebook pages. The atheists have 3,208 likes since August. QE! has 21 since May. I'm not saying these numbers mean anything, but you better believe that atheists are going to. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 18:23, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::First, where is this Question evolution! Facebook page that you are referring to? Second, unlike [[global atheism]], the Question evolution! campaign is growing.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/our-growing-question-evolution-campaign.html] Third, has the [[Question evolution! campaign]] decided to pursue an aggressive Facebook campaign yet or are there other tactics/strategies being employed at this stage? Last time I checked, Rome wasn't built in a day! :) Lastly, I am not impressed by a bunch of village atheists doing some Facebook likes. Global atheism is shrinking and continues to shrink. There are 10+ major obstacles facing American Atheism and global atheism. See: [[Essay: Will American atheism be cut by at least 50%?|10 major obstacles for atheism]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:59, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:::Go to Facebook and search for "Question Evolution," and you'll find it. As for other tactics they're pursuing, you tell me. This is the only place I've heard about QE! I'd say that not promoting themselves on Facebook would be a serious mistake though. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 18:49, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:::::One major difference between Western atheists and Christians is that Christians have patience and do not have the childish expectation of overnight results. I suggest reading Jesus's [http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/parable-of-the-mustard-seed-faq.htm mustard seed parable] and reading this article [http://users.adam.com.au/bstett/BChristianIncrease12.htm 2000 years of Christian increase]. Did Christianity start out with 12 disciples? How big is it now? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:56, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::::By the way ClearView, do you fit the stereotypes found [http://conservapedia.com/Essay:_%22We_are_atheism%22_campaign_faces_some_challenges#Overcoming_the_stereotypes.3F_You_be_the_judge.21 HERE?] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:03, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Why would I? I'm not an atheist. What's your problem that you immediately start throwing accusations at the faith of anyone who doesn't agree with you? --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 19:09, 5 December 2011 (EST)
I just asked a simple question. You seem awful defensive. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:17, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:You asked an offensive question, and implied that I'm an atheist. That was completely uncalled for. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 19:18, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:::You are not an atheist? Well, I am glad we can agree that atheism has no validity. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:44, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::::One last thing, what do you think about [http://siteanalytics.compete.com/weareatheism.com/ this graph?] and [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/weareatheism.com this report] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:47, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:::::I think I'm not interested in what you have to say until you apologise for insulting me. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 19:52, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Talk:Essay: "We Are atheism" campaign faces some challenges

2011-12-06T00:18:55Z

ClearView2011:

Bosnia and Herzegovina

2011-12-06T00:17:52Z

ClearView2011:

{{country
|name =''Bosna i Hercegovina Босна и Херцеговина''
|map =Bosnia rel 2002.jpg
|map2 =BosniaHerzegovina location.png
|flag =Flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina.jpg
|arms =Arms of Bosnia and Herzegovina.png
|capital =Sarajevo
|government =Parliamentary Democracy
|government-raw =
|language =Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Nebojsa Radmanovic, Zeljko Komsic, Haris Silajdžić
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =
|area =19,767 sq mi
|pop =3.8 million (est)
|pop-basis =2004
|gdp =$15.1 billion
|gdp-year =2007
|gdp-pc =$3,939
|currency =''konvertibilna marka конвертибилна марка'' (convertible mark)
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Bosnia and Herzegovina''' is a [[Balkan]] country formerly part of [[Yugoslavia]]. Its capital is [[Sarajevo]]. The country, as has much of the region, has experienced ethnic conflicts for several years (see [[Bosnian War]]). The region of [[Bosnia]] and [[Kosovo]] in nearby [[Serbia]] were especially hit by the violence. To attempt to resolve conflicts, the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina consists of three members, representing each of the major ethnic groups: the [[Croats]], [[Bosniaks]], and [[Serbs]]. The country is split into two federal entities; the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska (Serb Republic.)

==Geography==
*Area: 51,129 sq. km, slightly smaller than West Virginia.
*Cities: Capital--Sarajevo (est. pop 387,876); Banja Luka (220,407); Mostar (208,904); Tuzla (118,500); Bihac (49,544).
*Terrain: Mountains in the central and southern regions, plains along the Sava River in the north.
*Climate: Hot summers and cold winters; areas of high elevation have short, cool summers and long, severe winters; mild, rainy winters in the southeast.

==People==
The three main ethnic groups in present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina are Bosniak, Serb, and Croat, and languages are Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian (formerly "Serbo-Croatian"). Nationalities are Bosniak (Muslim), Bosnian Serb, and Bosnian Croat. Religions include Islam, Serb Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Judaism, some Protestant sects, and some others.
*Nationalities: Bosniak (Muslim), Bosnian Croat, Bosnian Serb.
*Population (July 2004 est.): 3.8 million (Note: all data dealing with population are subject to considerable error because of the dislocations caused by military action and ethnic cleansing. The most recent census was conducted in 1991.)
*Population growth rate (2004 est.): 0.45%.
*Ethnic groups: Bosniak 48.3%, Serb 34.0%, Croat 15.4%, others 2.3%. (Source: UNDP Human Development Report 2002--Bosnia-Herzegovina)
*Religions: Muslim (40%); Orthodox (31%); Catholic (15%); Protestant (4%); other (10%).
*Languages: Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian (formerly "Serbo-Croatian").
*Education: Mandatory 8-9 years of primary school (depending on region), 3-4 years in secondary school (vocational/liberal arts), and 3-5 years in universities (depending on major). In Bosnia and Herzegovina, there are 1,089 primary schools with 350,000 students and 289 secondary schools with 162,000 students. The main public universities are in larger cities (Sarajevo, Mostar, Banja Luka, Tuzla, Bihac, Zenica) and there are a number of private institutions of higher education. Adult literacy rate--male 94.1%, female 78.0%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate (2005 est.)--21.05 deaths/1,000 live births. Life expectancy (2005 est.)--male 70.09, female 75.8.
*Work force (2001 est.): 1.026 million.

==Government and Political Conditions==
===General Government Framework===
Under the provisions of the Dayton Peace Accords, the Entities have competencies in areas such as taxation, except indirect taxation, business development, and general legislation. Entities and cantons control their own budgets, spending on infrastructure, health care, and education. Ongoing reforms have led to the creation of a single, multi-ethnic military under state-level command and control to replace the previous Entity-based institutions and a state-level Indirect Taxation Administration (ITA) that is responsible for the implementation of a nationwide value-added tax (VAT), revenues from which are collected in the "Single Account." The Single Account funds the governments of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the country's foreign debt, the two Entities, and Brcko District. Customs, which had been collected by agencies of the two Entities, also is now collected by a new single state customs service.

====Presidency====
The Presidency in Bosnia and Herzegovina rotates every eight months among three members (Bosniak, Serb, Croat), each elected for a 4-year term. The three members of the Presidency are directly elected (the Federation votes for the Bosniak and Croat, and the Republika Srpska for the Serb).

The Presidency is responsible for:
*Conducting the foreign policy of Bosnia and Herzegovina;
*Appointing ambassadors and other international representatives, no more than two-thirds of whom may come from the Federation;
*Representing Bosnia and Herzegovina in European and international organizations and institutions and seeking membership in such organizations and institutions of which it is not a member;
*Negotiating, denouncing, and, with the consent of the Parliamentary Assembly, ratifying treaties of Bosnia and Herzegovina;
*Executing decisions of the Parliamentary Assembly;
*Proposing, upon the recommendation of the Council of Ministers, an annual budget to the Parliamentary Assembly;
*Reporting as requested, but no less than annually, to the Parliamentary Assembly on expenditures by the Presidency;
*Coordinating as necessary with international and non-governmental organizations in Bosnia and Herzegovina;
*Exercising command and control over the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina in peacetime, crises, and war, and;
*Performing such other functions as may be necessary to carry out its duties, as may be assigned to it by the Parliamentary Assembly, or as may be agreed by the Entities.

The Chair of the Council of Ministers is nominated by the Presidency and approved by the House of Representatives. He is then responsible for appointing a Foreign Minister, Minister of Defense, Minister of Foreign Trade, and others as appropriate. The Council is responsible for carrying out the policies and decisions in the fields of defense, intelligence, foreign policy; foreign trade policy; customs policy; monetary policy; finances of the institutions and for the international obligations of Bosnia and Herzegovina; immigration, refugee, and asylum policy and regulation; international and inter-Entity criminal law enforcement, including relations with Interpol; establishment and operation of common and international communications facilities; regulation of inter-Entity transportation; air traffic control; facilitation of inter-Entity coordination; and other matters as agreed by the Entities.

====Legislature====
The Parliamentary Assembly is the lawmaking body in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It consists of two houses: the House of Peoples and the House of Representatives.

The House of Peoples includes 15 delegates, two-thirds of whom come from the Federation (5 Croats and 5 Bosniaks) and one-third from the Republika Srpska (5 Serbs). Nine members of the House of Peoples constitutes a quorum, provided that at least three delegates from each group are present. Federation representatives are selected by the House of Peoples of the Federation, and Republika Srpska representatives are selected by the Republika Srpska National Assembly.

The House of Representatives is comprised of 42 members, two-thirds elected from the Federation and one-third elected from the Republika Srpska. Federation representatives are elected directly by the voters of the Federation, and Republika Srpska representatives are directly elected by Republika Srpska voters.

The Parliamentary Assembly is responsible for enacting legislation as necessary to implement decisions of the Presidency or to carry out the responsibilities of the Assembly under the constitution; deciding upon the sources and amounts of revenues for the operations of the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina and international obligations of Bosnia and Herzegovina; approving a budget for the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina; and deciding whether to consent to the ratification of treaties.

====Judiciary====
The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina is the supreme, final arbiter of legal matters. It is composed of nine members: four are selected by the House of Representatives of the Federation, two by the Assembly of the Republika Srpska, and three by the President of the European Court of Human Rights after consultation with the Presidency. The Constitutional Court's original jurisdiction lies in deciding any constitutional dispute that arises between the Entities or between Bosnia and Herzegovina and an Entity or Entities. The Court also has appellate jurisdiction within the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Both the Federation and the Republika Srpska government have established lower court systems for their territories.

===Principle government officials===
*Tri-Presidency: Nebojsa Radmanovic (Bosnian Serb and current chairman), Zeljko Komsic (Bosnian Croat), Haris Silajdzic (Bosniak)
*Chairman of the Council of Ministers: Nikola Spiric
*Foreign Affairs: Sven Alkalaj
*Foreign Trade and Economic Relations: Mladen Zirojevic

===Foreign Relations===
The implementation of the Dayton Accords of 1995 has focused the efforts of policymakers in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as the international community, on regional stabilization in the former Yugoslavia. However, donor resources for Bosnia and Herzegovina have diminished due to competing assistance priorities elsewhere in the region and globally. Bosnia and Herzegovina's relations with its neighbors Croatia, Montenegro, and Serbia have been fairly stable since the signing of Dayton in 1995. The U.S. role in the Dayton Accords and their implementation has been key to successes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Since the Dayton Accords were signed, over $15 billion in foreign aid has moved into Bosnia and Herzegovina, approximately $1.38 billion of it coming from Support for East European Democracy (SEED) funds. U.S. Government assistance, managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), as well as the Departments of State, Justice, Defense, Treasury, and Commerce, have been crucial to the redevelopment of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The U.S. Government currently has programming in the following areas: economic policy reform and restructuring; private sector development; fostering democratic reforms in local government, civic education, and civil society; rule of law, including support to law enforcement, judicial, and prosecutorial institutions; and security sector assistance.

Bosnia and Herzegovina is a member of the United Nations (1992); International Monetary Fund (IMF) (1992), World Bank (1995), Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) (1992); and the Council of Europe (2002). It also participates in regional cooperation through the Regional Cooperation Council (RCC), Central-European Initiative (CEI), Southeast Europe Co-operation Initiative (SECI), Southeast Europe Co-operation Process (SEECP), Adriatic-Ionic Initiative (AII) and others.

==Economy==
Bosnia and Herzegovina was among the poorer areas of the old Yugoslav Federation and remains one of the poorer countries in Europe. For the most part, agriculture remains in private hands, but farms have been small and inefficient, and net food imports increased dramatically in the aftermath of the 1992-1995 war. Many industries are still overstaffed, reflecting the legacy of the centrally-planned economy, though limited privatization has improved efficiency in certain sectors. Under Tito, military industries were widespread in Bosnia, which hosted a large share of Yugoslavia's defense plants. During the war, three years of interethnic strife damaged or destroyed much of the economy and infrastructure in Bosnia, caused the death of about 100,000 people, and displaced half of the population.

Considerable progress has been made since peace was reestablished following the Dayton Accords. Still regarded as a transition economy, Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) sees the long-term goal of EU membership as a driver to further economic growth and development. Due to Bosnia and Herzegovina's strict currency board regime, which links the Konvertibilna Marka (BAM or KM) to the Euro, inflation has remained relatively low and, as a result, the BAM is one of the most stable currencies in Southeast Europe. The banking sector has been fully reformed, with a significant inflow of foreign banks (foreign ownership currently stands at 85% of the banking sector) providing businesses with easier access to capital and a better range of banking services. Lending has slowed significantly since 2008.

Per capita GDP in 2007 was approximately U.S. $3,939, with a total nominal GDP of approximately U.S. $15.1 billion. The estimated real GDP growth rate for 2007 was 6.8%, and projected growth for 2008 is around 6%. While official unemployment is approximately 40%, "unofficial" estimates of unemployment that include the large gray economy are approximately 18%-22%. Bosnia and Herzegovina's most immediate task remains economic revitalization. The country needs meaningful progress in structural reforms to strengthen the basis for sustained, private sector-led growth. In order to improve the business climate, private sector growth--especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs)--and foreign direct investment (FDI) acceleration are needed to spur increased economic growth and job creation. Creating a single economic space will be key to attracting increased foreign investment. Privatization has been slow, and unemployment remains high.

BiH's top economic priorities are: acceleration of EU integration; strengthening the fiscal system; public administration reform; World Trade Organization (WTO) membership; and securing economic growth by fostering a dynamic, competitive private sector. To date, work on these priorities has been inconsistent. The country has received a substantial amount of foreign assistance and will need to demonstrate its ability to implement its economic reform agenda in order to advance its stated goal of EU accession.
*Nominal GDP (2007 Central Bank and IMF figures): $15.1 billion. (U.S.$1=1.43KM)
*GDP real growth rate (2007 Central Bank figure): 6.8%.
*Nominal GDP per capita: $3,939.
*Inflation rate (2007 est.): 4.9%.
*Natural resources: Hydropower, coal, iron ore, bauxite, manganese, forests, copper, chromium, lead, zinc, cobalt, nickel, clay, gypsum, salt, sand, forests.
*Agriculture: Products--wheat, corn, fruits, vegetables, livestock.
*Industry: Steel, aluminum, minerals, vehicle assembly, textiles, tobacco products, wooden furniture, explosives, munitions, aircraft repair, domestic appliances, oil refining.
*Trade (2007 Central Bank figures): Exports--$4.2 billion. Imports--$9.9 billion.

==History==
For the first centuries of the Christian era, Bosnia was part of the Roman Empire. After the fall of Rome, Bosnia was contested by Byzantium and Rome's successors in the west. Slavs settled the region in the 7th century, and the kingdoms of Serbia and Croatia split control of Bosnia in the 9th century. The 11th and 12th centuries saw the rule of the region by the kingdom of Hungary. The medieval kingdom of Bosnia gained its independence around 1200 A.D. Bosnia remained independent until 1463, when Ottoman Turks conquered the region.

During Ottoman rule, many Bosnians converted from Christianity to Islam. Bosnia was under Ottoman rule until 1878, when the Congress of Berlin transferred administrative control to Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia in 1908. While those living in Bosnia came under the rule of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, South Slavs in Serbia and elsewhere were calling for a South Slav state. World War I began when Serb nationalist Gavrilo Princip assassinated the Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. Following the Great War, Bosnia became part of the South Slav state of Yugoslavia, only to be given to the Nazi-puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) in World War II. During this period, many atrocities were committed against Jews, Serbs, and others who resisted the occupation. The Cold War saw the establishment of the Communist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under Josip Broz Tito, and the reestablishment of Bosnia as a republic with its medieval borders within the federation of Yugoslavia.

Yugoslavia's unraveling was hastened by Slobodan Milosevic's rise to power in 1986. Milosevic's embrace of Serb nationalism led to intrastate ethnic strife. Slovenia and Croatia both declared independence from Yugoslavia in June 1991. By late September 1991, Bosnian Serb Radovan Karadzic's SDS had declared four self-proclaimed "Serb Autonomous Regions (SAO)" in Bosnia. In October 1991, the Bosnian Serbs announced the formation within Bosnia of a "Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina" that would have its own constitution and parliamentary assembly. In January 1992, Radovan Karadzic publicly proclaimed a fully independent "Republic of the Serbian People in Bosnia-Herzegovina." On March 1, 1992, the Bosnian Government held a referendum on independence. Bosnia's parliament declared the republic's independence on April 5, 1992. However, this move was opposed by Serb representatives, who had voted in their own referendum in November 1991 in favor of remaining in Yugoslavia. Bosnian Serbs, supported by neighboring Serbia, responded with armed force in an effort to partition the republic along ethnic lines to create a "greater Serbia." Full recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina's independence by the United States and most European countries occurred on April 7, and Bosnia and Herzegovina was admitted to the United Nations on May 22, 1992.

In March 1994, Muslims and Croats in Bosnia signed an agreement creating the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This narrowed the field of warring parties to two. The conflict continued through most of 1995, and many atrocities were committed, including acts of genocide committed by members of the Army of Republika Srpska in and around Srebrenica from July 12-22, 1995, where approximately 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were killed. The conflict ended with the November 21, 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement, which was formally signed on December 14, 1995 in Paris.

Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, the political and military leaders of the Bosnian Serb separatist movement, were indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia [http://www.icty.org/] in The Hague in July 1995 on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity stemming from their role in the Srebrenica massacre. Karadzic was apprehended and transferred to the ICTY in The Hague by Serbian authorities on July 21, 2008. Mladic remains at large.

Bosnia and Herzegovina today consists of two Entities--the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is largely Bosniak and Croat, and the Republika Srpska, which is primarily Serb. In July 2000, the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina rendered a decision whereby Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs are recognized as constituent people throughout the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In March 2002, this decision was formally recognized and agreed by the major political parties in both Entities.

The most recent national elections took place in October 2006, electing new state presidency members; Entity governments; and state, Entity, and cantonal parliaments. The wartime nationalist parties--SDS, HDZ, and SDA--lost ground to SNSD, SBiH, and HDZ-1990, although these parties relied heavily on ethnically based messages to appeal to voters. A six-party coalition has formed a national government. The next national elections are scheduled for October 2010. In October 2008, Bosnia and Herzegovina held municipal elections where mayors and members of municipal and cantonal assemblies were directly elected (in all municipalities except Mostar and Brcko District).
[[File:Muslims in Europe map.jpg|thumb|290px|Muslims in Europe by country.]]
The international community retains an extraordinary civilian and military presence in BiH stemming from the Dayton Peace Accords. The Dayton Accords created the position of High Representative, an international official charged with overseeing implementation of the civilian aspects of the agreement. The current High Representative (since July 2007) is Slovakia's Miroslav Lajcak [www.ohr.int].

In December 1995, NATO deployed a 60,000-troop Implementation Force (IFOR) to oversee implementation of the military aspects of the peace agreement. IFOR transitioned into a smaller Stabilization Force (SFOR) in 1996. With the end of the SFOR mission in December 2004, the European Union (EU) assumed primary responsibility for military stabilization operations. Approximately 2,000 EU troops remain deployed in Bosnia [www.euforbih.org]. NATO maintains a small headquarters operation with responsibility to assist with defense reform and efforts against persons indicted for war crimes and counterterrorism [www.afsouth.nato.int/NHQSA/index.htm].

<blockquote>
Bosnia-Hercegovina is still recovering from the bloody inter-ethnic war of 1992-95. Around 250,000 people died in the conflict between Bosnian Muslims, Croats and Serbs. Almost 8,000 Muslims were killed by Bosnian Serbs at Srebrenica in 1995 - Europe's worst atrocity since World War II. Many Muslims were displaced, as were members of other communities. A peacekeeping force remains in the country, whose frontiers have long been considered the western borders of the Islamic faith in Europe. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4385768.stm#germany]
</blockquote>

==See also==
* [[Sarajevo]]
* [[Yugoslavia]]

{{Copyright Details (US Government)}}

Source = [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2868.htm]

[[Category:Balkans]][[Category:European Countries]]

Talk:Essay: "We Are atheism" campaign faces some challenges

2011-12-06T00:09:07Z

ClearView2011: /* Numbers */

Talk:Essay: "We Are atheism" campaign faces some challenges

2011-12-05T23:49:02Z

ClearView2011:

Infamous liberals

2011-12-05T23:25:54Z

ClearView2011: Undo revision 943204 by ScottDG (talk)The Democrats say otherwise. Phelps has also called Obama the antichrist. He's not liberal.

Below is a list of infamous [[liberals]]:

* [[Margaret Sanger]]

* [[John Wayne Gacy]] - In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, [[serial killer]] John Wayne Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref> Gacy was also a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with [[Rosalynn Carter]].<ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527</ref>

* [[Charles Darwin]]

* [[Richard Dawkins]]
== See also ==

*[[Atheism and mass murder]]
*[[Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA]]
*[[Atheism and uncharitableness]]
*[[Atheism and deception]]

{{Liberalism}}

==References==

<references/>

[[Category: Liberals]]

Talk:Essay: "We Are atheism" campaign faces some challenges

2011-12-05T23:23:07Z

ClearView2011: /* Numbers */ new section

Infamous liberals

2011-12-05T23:05:56Z

ClearView2011: Fred Phelps is certainly deranged, but I have no idea how anybody could call him liberal.

Talk:Essay: Darwin fish meet the Question evolution! campaign

2011-12-05T18:46:28Z

ClearView2011:

This animation is really really bad. Can't you find a better one? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 15:13, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:::Don't worry, it appears given the [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/11/more-volunteers-are-joining-our.html expanding volunteer base] of a certain group, soon there will be animations/essays using [[piranha]] or schools of sharks. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:23, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::::OK, but in the meantime this animation is terrible. It looks bad and moves even worse. Not a good image. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 15:29, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::::::Why don't you ask [[Shockofgod]] if he likes it. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:32, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::is it physically painful for you to respond like a normal human being? The animation is embarrassing and very amateur which makes your campaign look the same. Do you know anything about marketing? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 15:34, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::::Max, the evolutionist goal is poorly defended in the biology class stadiums and this is yet another case where biblical Christians are going to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvW5PuAVbmY slam goal after goal] in the atheist/naturalism net. It is going to be glorious! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:44, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::::That's great. Now about this animation - it looks terribly amateur, is there another one you could use that looks more professional? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 15:50, 30 November 2011 (EST)
In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most United States high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class. Just imagine how timid teachers will be when students are armed with the 15 questions plus any follow up questions that are developed!

"To be certain to take what you attack, attack where the enemy cannot defend." - Sun Tzu [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:57, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::So this is the best animation you have? You know, if this campaign is to work you need to have a certain amount of polish to it. It needs to be professional, slick and credible. The animation is none of this and, actually, looks stupid. So what image to you want to portray - one of professionalism or one that is amateur? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:00, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::::Max, if it is such a pressing concern for you, develop a better animation and I may consider using it. I am moving on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:03, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::::: @ Conservative: The present animation is indeed not that well made. I don't know it is just my browser, but the animation gives a recurring black screen for me. I actually don't care that much but since this article is featured on MPL there will be a lot of people coming to this article and might be disappointed and/or confused by the animation. Maybe you could use an animation from [http://netanimations.net/dolphins.htm THIS] site? À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 10:24, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::::::It's not your browser; I'm getting exactly the same effect. I agree that he should change it, because right now it looks sloppy. One of the animations you suggested would do fine. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:46, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T19:20:01Z

ClearView2011: /* Deleted example to releativity */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

==Path Independence and Photons==
Wait, so time is some sort of vector field such that when you integrate it you get time? And that vector field is conservative? I've never heard of such a thing... 
As well, you state: "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." Yes, if you plug in the formula for non-relativistic, Newtonian momentum, you get zero, but SR gives you the equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2. Plug m=0 in. You get E=pc. So, the momentum is nonzero. That's a very well-known result... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 12:06, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:So should I take the "counter example" down...? Not to be rude but can someone at least respond to me? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
::Take it down, then if someone reverts (which is likely) it'll provoke a short discussion that probably won't reach a consensus. Regardless, you're unlikely to succeed in keeping it changed. I'm not trying to discourage, go ahead and try changing it, I'm just letting you know what to expect. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:33, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:::These are interesting points worthy of further discussion. As to the first point, however, merely asking two questions is not persuasive to me.

:::As to the second point, I find the argument somewhat circular. Is the energy equation cited verified by any experiment, or is it merely definitional? If merely definitional, then it does not provide a way for calculating actual momentum.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Well answer them. The point I'm making is that there is no vector field such that when integrates it, one gets time. I had never heard of it until then. I am asking you to enlighten me.
 
::::And as a matter of fact there is! The equation is E=hf where E is the energy of the photon, f is the frequency of the photon, and h is just a proportionality constant (known as Planck's constant). And it has been experimentally verified. It explains the spectrum from blackbody radiation and it explains the photoelectric effect. And if I recall correctly, your camera uses the photoelectric effect. These things are quite well known... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:55, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::Oh, and I forgot to mention--the Compton effect is explained by photons. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::Please address my more substantive point: has your equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2 been experimentally verified, or is it simply definitional?

:::::::First of all, will you please answer my question...? What is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? And oops. Misread your question. And no, it's not "definitional," it's from the relativistic expressions of energy and momentum... (And yes, those have been experimentally verified--if I recall correctly, using those equations, you can predict what can happen (i.e. speeds) when elementary particles are created. But I'm not particle physicist) Once you have those, just do a little algebra and you get that equation. And I hope you're not going to deny basic algebra....
 
:::::::Again, all this is well known.... Out of curiosity have you ever actually studied relativity or this photon stuff? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:39, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I've removed the counter-example of photons...I think I've provided a satisfactory explanation to Schlafly (and he's not responding for some reason...) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:50, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Schlafly, I saw you re-added the "counter-example." Will you please respond to me? Are you seriously just going to keep it there and refuse to discuss this at all? Wow and you claim that we're not open-minded.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:45, 9 November 2011 (EST)

::::::::::Andy, there is no "counter-example of photons." Photons are not mentioned in the list. But are you referring to this counterexample:

:::::::::::28.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.

::::::::::Let's be clear about what the dispute is first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 11 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::::::Yeah, that's the one. Sorry. Poorly-worded. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:29, 14 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::::::Will someone please tell me why (a) SR/GR promotes (moral) relativism, (b) photons aren't legit even though I've just pointed that your argument was wrong (maybe that's a bit generous. To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, I can't even say it's wrong...) and (c) what is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 10:26, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==

It may be jumping the gun to put the finding from Friday as evidence against GR. The results have yet to be duplicated - duplicability is needed for a claim to have scientific merit - and have yet to be carefully peer reviewed. The results are significant at the 95% CI but that means there's a 1 in 20 chance they're actually inaccurate. Given how many measurements are made at the LHC some are going to be both statistically significant and incorrect. It may be more prudent to wait to see if it's a one off or measurement error. I propose waiting at least until other particle acceleration labs can attempt to duplicate the results to make any judgement; after all, that's what CERN is doing
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 00:18, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:I disagree. The opposition to the results from CERN -- which confirm prior results from another laboratory which were not as precise -- is unreasonable. It's not necessary to continue to pretend that Relativity is true when there is so much evidence against it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::CERN itself hasn't even confirmed the results. The data was published a lot quicker than data usually is because if it is accurate, then it changes the majority of physics laws discovered in the past century. The theory of relativity is not the only theory/law which involves the speed of light, electromagnetism does as well. Because of this, CERN wanted other scientists to try and find a flaw in the experiment quickly so that if there is a flaw, it is found quickly, and if there isn't, then scientists can begin determining what needs to change in order to accomodate this. Once the data has been properly analysed, without prematurely jumping to conclusions, then it would be fair to say that the neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light. But something to keep in mind: this is not the first experiment done with neutrinos, all of the prior ones having travelled slower than the speed of light. If you do an experiment 500 times, and each results has a 1/1000 chance of being inaccurate, there is a 40% chance that at least one result will be inaccurate. If they find an error in the experiment (such as a piece of the measuring equipment being broken, or poor calibration of equipment, or leftover neutrinos from previous experiments, or any other impacting error), then wouldn't it make conservapedia look silly for jumping to a conclusion too quickly? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The CERN experiment is not the only one suggesting faster-than-c travel. Moreover, there is no basis for doubting the news that something travels faster than c. Most of the objections in the media are based in an irrational clinging to Relativity. Hence the counterexample is being restored ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Looks like they've found the problem already: there was a flaw with the experiment.http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php This article basically says that they used GPS to measure the locations and the times. However, because the satellite used moves at a different speed to the Earth, relativity needs to be taken into account. Usually, relativity has no significant effect until speeds get nearish the speed of light. However, the neutrinos travelled 60 nanoseconds faster than light. Because it's nanoseconds, the speed difference of the Earth and the satellite is enough that relativity affects the experiment at the nanosecond level. Scientists have done calculations to determine how this changes the results (as because of the flaw, the results they got weren't actually accurate), and found that the neutrinos actually travelled for 64 seconds longer than they previously thought, making their speed very slightly less than the speed of light. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 18:02, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

: No, this explanation has not been accepted. There have been many other papers with other explanations. The jury is still out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:33, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Looking back, I made a mistake. I said general relativity's prediction was outside the measurement uncertainty for the fourth experiment (Anderson et al., 1992). I misread it. GR prediciton: 42.98 ±0.04, Observation: 43.13 ± 0.14. They actually do overlap. So general relativity is four for four. My bad. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:41, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: I took a look at the JPL link above but did not find any reference to the perihelion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::::: I'm pretty sure there's no reference to the perihelion because it's the raw data, without analysis. If the data was mapped to show Mercury's location, it would (presumably) show a perihelion. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There's a difference between relativity and quantum mechanics (which explains the above observation). If you only took high school physics--you have about two hundred years of catching up to do on the field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Ummmm...==

Physics has come a long way since Albert Einstein published his theories of relativity. Actually, there are quite a few hypothetical paradigms within modern physics that would allow a particle of sufficiently high energy to apparently travel faster than light. I'm not a physicist (as I've said on other pages, I'm a biologist), but I am peripherally familiar with a few of the better-supported ideas. I suggest you read up on M theory and string theory. At the risk of butchering the explanation (I am NOT a physicist), I will say that within the paradigm of M theory and string theory, observing high-energy particles moving slightly faster than light is not all that surprising. That said, the authors of the paper describing the "faster than light" neutrinos, admit up front that the numbers they got was probably the result of some sort of experimental error--the results need to be repeatable in order to be scientific. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

: Science can advance with one observation, and it's not necessary to wait until it is repeated before discussing and learning from it. How quickly (if ever) was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] repeated?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:: The Michelson-Morley experiment was first done in 1887. It was repeated by them and by others many times in the next few years. Illingworth and Kennedy came up with a variant that was more sensitive and could test for certain exotic explanations. They did that very soon after the initial experiment. Dayton Miller also did such experiments and continued to do them even after Einstein's work was completed. Miller acknowledged the results of the experiments but remained a committed opponent to special relativity. One of Miller's experiments did actually turn up some interesting results but his later experiments and other work failed to replicate it and it seems to have been a statistical anomaly. Others continued to duplicate versions of the MM experiment because the data from it can be used to test aspects of special relativity and other ideas. So duplicated forms have continued right up to the present day although generally using carefully tuned lasers as the light sources which give much more precision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Some experiments done following the MM experiment (not all listed, only some early ones and some recent ones): Morley-Miller 1902-1904 (published 1904), Miller 1921, Miller 1923-1924, Antonini et al 2005, Stanwix et al 2006, Eisele et al 2009, Herrmann et al 2009. Plus others between them, just listing some early ones and some recent ones. And it is usually necessary to wait until an experiment is repeated before accepting it to be accurate. A single observation, that can't be repeated, usually has an explanation within the current understanding of physics. For example, a network of ravines and gullies was observed in the 1870s on the surface of Mars, and there was wide speculation about their origin. An explanation suggested in the early 1900s wasn't proved until the 1960s, that the ravines and gullies were in actuality an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blowing across the surface in the strong winds. Another example of a 'discovery' that later turned out to be false was the existence of Vulcan, a planet between Mercury and the Sun. A single observation, unconfirmed by repetition, does not indicate a discovery. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::: Yes, the M-M experiment was repeated many times. It had to be done at different times of the year, at different altitudes, with different materials, etc. Eg, maybe the length contraction might have been different for wood and brass.
::: There are physicists who have suggested faster than light particles, but string theory and M theory are Lorentz invariant and useless on the issue. The string theorists would definitely be surprised by anything faster than light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: Claimed results from a single experiment have been proven wrong before (e.g, the claims of producing [[cold fusion]] in 1989). It makes sense to see if an experiment is replicated before throwing out an extremely well tested theory. It's very suspicious that we haven't seen neutrinos going faster than the speed of light before this. Experimenters are only human beings and could easily have made a mistake or forget to include something in their calculations. The claimed velocity is only a tiny fraction lager than c and might easily be explained by not taking into account some systematic error.
:::: If Mr. Schlafly's other 36 "counterexamples" are so strong then I don't see why he so badly needs the example of an unreplicated experiment whose data is still in the process of being analyzed. (When Einstein was asked about the book '100 Authors Against Einstein' he responded: "If I were wrong, it would only have taken one".) --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 11:27, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: If the experiment is disproved by subsequent experiments, then that particular counterexample can be removed. But the insistence on clinging to the [[theory of relativity]] when the available evidence is to the contrary is unjustified. Einstein's quote is inapplicable to this issue: the context of Einstein's quote refers to a government attempt to discredit his theory. His quote does apply to government efforts to deny scientific evidence today, such as the attempt by the [[NCI]] to deny the [[abortion]]-[[breast cancer]] link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Gee, the experiment counts as a counterexample even before the facts are in. What a surprise....
:::::: I'm not sure if the German government was behind '100 Authors Against Einstein', but even if it were it's completely irrelevant. The folly wasn't that it was done by the government; it was that if relativity was wrong one good argument would suffice. The inclusion of this unconfirmed experimental result just shows how this list of "counterexamples" values quantity over quality. Rather than making a few strong arguments it's a list of 37 random tidbits. '''You're expecting to overturn one of science's best theories with something that can fit inside a Twitter post?''' The reasoning for many points' inclusion are not well explained and counterarguments are not addressed (e.g, Hawking radiation is called a "[c]ontrived explanation" with no justification whatsoever). I suspect the "conciseness" of the points is just a reflection of its author's short attention span. I'll report to the Worldwide Relativity Cabal that we have nothing to fear from... oops. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:46, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Thank you MatthewQ! Oh, and Mr. Schlafly, the evidence does not support a link between abortion and breast cancer. You may find good sources on the topic [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733063/?tool=pmcentrez here], [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15835-2/fulltext here], and [http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814 here]. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 08:11, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::: As for redoing the M-M experiment, the [[LIGO]] experiment can be seen as a $400M modern M-M experiment. While the M-M failed to detect the motion of the Earth, LIGO has failed to detect motion in other galaxies. You may be interested in this new paper reporting on an NSF grant to teach high school students about LIGO detecting gravity waves. This is just to be ready in case LIGO ever succeeds in detecting anything, I guess. [http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3720] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 06:08, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== A few sections that should be removed... ==

12: For this point to be right, things need to have started VERY VERY small, which is impossible if Creationism is right. This creates an inconsistency within Conservapedia and should be removed.
26: The first part is wrong due to GPSs. In order to be more accurate, they take into account relativity, and hence relativity has produced something useful. The rest of it is repeated in 18. Hence, as everything in 26 is either wrong or repeated, it should be removed.
28: Relativity does not require everything with 0 mass to have 0 momentum. It actually takes into account that light, despite having 0 mass, has momentum.
29: This is actually wrong. The age of each twin is independent of the path travel, it is dependent only on the acceleration they experience. Therefore, this point is wrong.
Any comments or disagreements? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 22:02, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:On point 12, physicists themselves admit that relativity contradicts quantum mechanics shortly after the Big Bang. So even relativists would (or should) concede the validity of this counterexample.

:On point 26, GPS's were not developed as a result of relativity. This has been discussed at length on this site in the past. No relativists were involved in the engineering of GPS's; any differences in timing on the satellites relative to ground are more easily corrected by synchronization rather than theoretical predictions.

:Will review the other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

::I fully agree with all this. Some of the stuff in this page literally left my head hurting pretty badly from facepalming so hard.

::And, Schlafly, how does this make relativity wrong? Newtonian physics is wrong at quantum levels too. Should we add a "Counterexamples to Newtonian Mechanics" page and put something like that in there too? Of course not--it's an excellent approximation for things on the everyday scale. Same thing with GR.

::No, they were not developed because of relativity, but they were developed taking relativity into account. The people who built it didn't know the specifics, but they knew the corrections from relativity were there and they took them into account. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:53, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

::::I concur. Rather, arguing "counterexamples" is a fine way to demonstrate the weaknesses, inconsistencies, or future directions of inquiry regarding any scientific paradigm. However, it is a logical fallacy to say that "these are the problems with hypothesis A, therefore hypothesis B ''must'' be true". For a position to be effectively argued, one must present empirical evidence in support of an alternative hypothesis. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 00:56, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::A bigger logical fallacy occurs when someone insists or thinks that an alternative hypothesis B must exist before disproving a hypothesis A.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:14, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::Good point. However, when a hypothesis is not supported the scientific process usually then entails asking the question of why it was not supported, and then forming a new hypothesis that once again fits all of the available data. This is why scientific understanding of even the most hard and fast paradigms can change so dramatically from one generation to the next (or, occasionally, from one experiment to the next). The most exciting science gets done when a well-reasoned hypothesis is rejected--simply because it opens the door to so many new possibilities.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 13:01, 14 November 2011 (EST)

== A couple more problems ==

These went up after I posted the other section so I didn't know what to do. If you would prefer I post it there, then sorry. I'm new to wikis so I don't know proper etiquette and perhaps a missed something in the guidelines :)

Anyway, first thing, you state: "It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."

...Honestly, I am speechless about this. Again, this was taken down but now someone put it back up... You guys honestly think this statement is true? There is no connection between the two--the only thing they have in common is the name "relativity." What, you think that people's morals depend on their frame of reference and change by the relativistic <math> \gamma (\equiv 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2})</math> factor or something?! I am truly shocked by this...What connection is there? Where is the equation that predicts this?

Secondly: "Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light." Nope. Things can't travel at the speed of light, according to SR. Relativity explicitly states that things cannot go faster than light. If you drop this, then of course there are going to be going to be inconsistencies with SR...And that thread only talks about things going at the speed of light. What's the problem with solenoids travelling near c? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 16:52, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:Can someone please tell me what the link between moral relativism and GR/SR is...? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:04, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::Because <s>God</s> <s>psychotic rambling homophobic momma's boy</s> Andy Schlafly said so. You have to turn off your <s>indoctrinated</s> educated mind... --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:36, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

== At first glance ==

There are so many problems with this page I don't know where to start. Whomever wrote it is obviously clueless about science and its

methods. A few of the problems include:

1. Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.

The lack of experimental confirmation ''so far'' of gravity waves does NOT falsify the theory. Absence of evidence is not evidence of

absence.

3. Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of

Relativity.

Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed.

7. The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds relativity

Untrue. The EFEs contain a term (the cosmological constant) that fully accounts for accelerated expansion.

10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass

What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem. ?

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

AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster

than light.

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

See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not

"true and verifiable".

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

Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1.

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not

falsify a theory.

26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the

theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.

Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity.

27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction.

This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.

The priniciple of isotropy does not falisfy Relativity. The theory itself accounts for, and predicts, the difference in observed inertia.

28. 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.

And Relativity also predicts that photons have non-zero momentum. Relativistic systems can have non-zero momentum even with no

rest mass, due to ''mass-energy equivalence''. Relativity correctly predicts the momentum of a massless particle as p = h*f/c = h/λ.

31. The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows

down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to

be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity

Incorrect, as this only takes Special Relativity into account. This is a common fallacy. It is the acceleration required to return the twin

that accounts for the difference in clocks and is explained/predicted by General Relativity. One must take both SRT and GRT into

account.

32. Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right,

theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.

Fields do not constitute an "aether". The EM field exists (and was explained/predicted by Maxwell long before Eistein).

34 (a). In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens.

How is such an account "true and verifiable"?

34(b). This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.

Something that is "likely" does not falsify a scientific theory.

35. Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the

properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.

This is not an argument against applied mathematics, not against Relativity per se.

37. Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding.

This does not falsify the theory.

~~csmcmillion

:'''Reply''': by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack, you lost credibility from the get-go. A quick review of your points confirms it:

:1. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It is when billions are spent on many years of looking. Surely you wouldn't think a lost item is in your backpack if you spent time looking for it there and could not find it.

:3. "Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed." Experiments '''''are''''' confirmation in themselves.

:7. "the cosmological constant... fully accounts for accelerated expansion." Reliance on a cosmological constant has failed before.

:10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass. "What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem?" Oh please. None of these counterexamples is candidly addressed in physics departments because these counterexamples cast doubt on a theory preferred for political reasons. Anyone in a physics department who expresses doubt about the theory of relativity would be thereby ending his own academic career.

:13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement. "AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster than light." Relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance (which cannot seriously be disputed in QM) whether a type of information is transmitted or not.

:14. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51. "See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not 'true and verifiable.'" There are no [[Counterexamples to the Bible]], so this conflict is a serious one.

:15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching. "Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1." And see my answer to #1.

:18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics. "The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not falsify a theory." The failure of the theory to produce is strong evidence against its validity.

:26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. "Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity." A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I'll address your other responses as my time permits. For now:

"by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack"

Stating the obvious is not an ad hominem attack. I didn't say the author was an "idiot". Anyone who honestly thinks that because "devices" have not been engineered based upon a scientific theory somehow ''falsifies'' that theory ''is'' truly clueless (maybe ignorant would have been a better word) of science and the scientific method. A correct scientific theory must explain previous observations and correctly predict those to come. No where is there a requirement that it lead to engineered "devices".

14. "The action-at-a-distance by Jesus"

I should have added: The AAAD by Jesus is (usually) considered a miracle - a suspension of natural law. So I'm not clear on how the suspension of natural law could be considered a counterexample to a natural law to begin with.

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

I should have asked a simple question on this one: Have you ever asked an astronomer, cosmologist or theoretical physicist if s/he has had insights from Relativity? Please - find ''one'' that hasn't had deep insight as a result.

"A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--Andy Schlafly 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)"

So, adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible, which hindered technical progress for more than a thousand years, indicates that the Bible is almost certainly wrong. Thank you '''so much''' for clearing that up. ~~csmcmillion

:Take a look at [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]. When you post more substantive comments, then I'll respond to them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:37, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I agree that "relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance", but not that AAAD "cannot seriously be disputed in QM". There is no QM experiment that show AAAD. There are interpretations of QM that seem to imply AAAD, and respected physicists who believe in those interpretations and hence in AAAD. But QM does not imply AAAD as there are also relativistic interpretations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:27, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:QM experiments have shown that a pair of spinning, entangled photons can be separated a great distance, and that the mere observation of the spin of one of those photons immediately removes the uncertainty about the spin of the other photon a far distance away. All attempts to deny that [[action-at-a-distance]] reality have failed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:: Yes, the photon experiment is correct. Some people do interpret the observation of one photon as affecting the other photon. But there is no proof of that. You could prove it if the observation transmitted information, but no one can do that. Other interpretations do not require AAAD. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:47, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Andy: Why did you delete RSchlafly's most recent comment? RSchlafly: I believe you are correct. A little research on my part shows numerous refutations to the assertions made on this page, going back a couple of years:

http://skullsinthestars.com/2010/08/09/right-wing-refutations-of-relativity-really-really-wrong/

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/6253

I'm beginning to see why people are telling me not to waste my time trying to contribute to this site.
:All you're doing is making your own "assertions without clarification". We've had these arguments before, and these arguments were created by people who refuse to listen to what we say or refuse to read any of the sources we provide. And it's tiresome. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:44, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:User:csmcmillion, it's not a discussion when someone won't use his own words to explain his views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:49, 13 November 2011 (EST)

::And it's not a discussion when sysops repeatedly delete comments, as you just did. ~~csmcmillion
:::And what exactly did I delete? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Just wanted to add to this: When has <math>\Lambda</math> failed? It's a perfectly legitimate term in the EFE's, as csmcmillion has stated. The righthand side of it is (in <math>G=c=1</math> units) is <math>8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta }</math>. You need something on the left which is a measure of curvature, i.e., the Einstein tensor <math>G^{\alpha \beta}</math>. Why the Einstein tensor? Why not the Ricci tensor? Why not the scalar curvature times the metric? The reason is that the stress-energy tensor (T) has to have zero divergence: <math>\nabla_{\beta} T^{\alpha \beta} = 0 </math>. The Einstein tensor has zero divergence as well. But, we also have <math> \nabla_{\gamma} g^{\alpha \beta} = 0</math>. So we can safely add in <math>\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta}</math> to the left hand side of the EFE without violating local conservation of energy-momentum. Using this gives <math>G^{\alpha \beta}+\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta} = 8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta}. </math> [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:46, 15 November 2011 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The "The observed lack of curvature in overall space" is not an "unobserved" phenomenon. Accordingly, it has been reverted along with the others. Looking for something that should be there under a theory, but not finding it there as predicted, is a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:50, 30 November 2011 (EST)

:[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], sorry, yes, I was being a bit overzealous on that one. However, I think the principle holds - many of the concepts listed are not counterexamples. Starting with number one: relativity predicts gravity waves and predicts that they will be extremely difficult to detect. Now I hear you say that's a pretty lousy kind of prediction - and you're right - but it still doesn't make it a counterexample. The same goes for the entry on gravitons (additionally, they're a prediction of quantum theory, not relativity, but that's for another phase of editing).
:It may be that further categorizing is necessary. For example, issues like the Twin Paradox and the Ehrenfest Paradox are not strictly unobserved phenomena either. Item 37, failure to solve the equations, is a problem for mathematics, not necessarily for relativity.
:Perhaps a simpler solution would be to rename the whole article, perhaps to 'Counterarguments to Relativity'. That way the article doesn't look silly by listing things that clearly aren't counterexamples, and also is open to inclusion of a broader range of criticisms of the theory. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:50, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:: I agree with QPR, as upon thinking about it, 'counterexamples' does not accurately describe the things on the list. And looking for something predicted and not finding it is only a counterexample/counterargument if it is predicted to be in a specific place, and when looking there, it isn't found. Hence, not finding gravity waves despite looking for them doesn't mean they don't exist. Many things were thought to be myths or non-existent until they were found, including giraffes. But I also disagree with QPR in that categorizing the list is unnecessary, and would result in needless discussions about where certain points belong, rather than more productive discussions. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::: I don't think that counterexamples is the best word either. My suggestion would be to leave the title as is, but to split the list into ''paradoxes'' and ''anomalies''. They maybe people would have a better idea what to expect from each item. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:43, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Response to the above: the list is of "counterexamples". These are examples that are counter to the theory. Other terms, like "paradox" or "anomaly", capture neither the concept of "example" nor of it being "counter" to the theory. The term "paradox" arises in philosophy, but this isn't philosophy. Relativity is a theory that pretends to be correct in every case, but it isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:24, 3 December 2011 (EST)

== Deleted example to releativity ==

Hello, I added a counter example to relativity that was removed, despite it being valid. My counter example was that the special theory of relativity predicts that mass is a form of energy and they are interchangeable. But if this were true the huge amount of energy stored in common matter would have been utilised by now in power stations and weaponry.

The problem is, it's been over 100 years since this theory was published and not one power station that utilises the interchange of mass and energy predicted by relativity has actually been built.

However, this counter example was removed because a member claimed that these do exist. Now this leaves us with a dichotomy. Do we...
A) Admit that these power stations exist (which they don't) and therefore acknowledge the special theory of relativity is accurate and true, or
B) We keep the counter example included that no power station that utilises special relativity exists, and therefore it is a sign that relativity is false.

I think we should vote for B on this issue. It would be like inventing the motor engine, but not building cars! --[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 12:36, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:Actually these power stations DO exist and have done for decades; they're called "nuclear reactors" and they generate heat by turning mass into energy. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 12:45, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::If these stations do exist, then how come Albert Einstein admitted of the inability to apply the predictions of his OWN theory? I quote "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable".

::Next you'll be telling me that we can do the physically impossible and generate electricity by fusing atoms to form heavier atoms too.

::Let's face it, special relativity has no practical application in providing energy. If it were, mass and energy would be seen interchanging all the time. F will ''always'' equal MA, mass can neither increase or decrease by being converted into energy; observations of non-zero mass particles accelerated to ''exactly'' the speed of light prove this.--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:01, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::The stations exist, hundreds of them, all over the world. Some of them even fit into ships and submarines. Nuclear fission reactors produce power by converting rest mass into electromagnetic and kinetic energy, exactly in accordance with e=mc2. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:06, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::::''I'' don't believe that. Do you ''know'' they exist for sure? Have you ''really'' ever been to one? ''I'm'' sure they employ some kind of ''a'' clever trick. Otherwise Newton, unchallenged as the most intelligent ''scientist'' of all time, would see his second law of motion proven wrong. The second law of motion is a law that is known to always hold true by centuries of accurate tests. These power stations can not exist, the laws of physics don't allow it!--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:18, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::::I don't care what you believe. Yes they exist, and yes I've been to one. If you tell me where you live I'll give you directions to the nearest one, and you can either visit or call their press officer. Either way they'll be happy to explain how they turn mass into energy and generate power with the heat that's released. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:23, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::::::These aren't my beliefs, these are scientific facts. Newton's laws have been established for centuries and have never been challenged. Yet if they are true, then nuclear power stations can't exist because that would require the M of F=MA to be a variable quantity directly related to A.

::::::As I put more energy into the acceleration of an object, the mass does not increase, it cannot increase. Why? Because mass and energy cannot be interchanged. If this were true, then no non-zero mass particle could ever be accelerated to the speed of light. Non-zero mass particles are accelerated to the speed of light every day at particle colliders worldwide.

::::::If what you say is true, then we would have to get rid of this entire page because it invalidates every counter example.--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:43, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::::::You're not listening, are you? Conversion of mass into energy, in accordance with e=mc2 is how nuclear reactors work. Your counterexample was removed because it's INVALID. What part of this don't you understand? Newton's Second Law is irrelevant to the point you're trying to make, by the way.

:::::::"Yet if they are true, then nuclear power stations can't exist" Epic fail. Nuclear power stations DO exist.

:::::::"If what you say is true, then we would have to get rid of this entire page because it invalidates every counter example" Why? Just because a theory is false overall, that doesn't mean that parts of it aren't true. Parts of Darwin's theory are true; living things DO inherit characteristics from their parents and those characteristics DO affect their chances of survival. Despite that, evolution is still false. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:48, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::::::::If it was removed because nuclear power stations exist, then surely it would invalidate every counter example too, right? If what you claim is correct and they do exist, then shouldn't this whole page be deleted?.
::::::::By the way, Newton's laws are entirely relevant here, the second law being incorrect (I know it is really) is fundamental to relativity --[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:58, 3 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::::WHY would it invalidate every counterexample here? There's a lot more to relativity than e=mc2. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 14:13, 3 December 2011 (EST)
::::::@GMilhouse: Newton's second law is not <math>F=ma</math>. It is <math> F=\dot p</math> (Newton's formulation in ''Principia Mathematica''!), where <math>p=mv</math> (non-relativistically) is momentum. This includes the possibility of varying mass - necessary for instance when modelling rocket flight. Plus, can you provide a reference to an experiment where a non-zero mass particle was accelerated to the speed of light? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 14:06, 3 December 2011 (EST)
:Maybe I should cut to the chase. Yes or no. Does the fact that nuclear reactors exist invalidate almost every possible counter example on this page, and every valid example merely represents an aspect of physics that the current theory does not yet accommodate? If so, then surely this entire page should be deleted. --[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 14:16, 3 December 2011 (EST)
::No. Now stop crying about your example being deleted and do something constructive. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 14:19, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Crocodile

2011-12-03T19:18:36Z

ClearView2011: /* Behaviour */ Iguanas are herbivorous. They don't steal eggs.

{{Taxonomy
|name=Crocodile
|image=Americancrocodile.jpg
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom=Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Reptilia
|subclass=
|infraclass=
|superorder=
|order=Crocodilia
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|families=
|family=Crocodylidae
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=Crocodylus Osteolaemus
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=C. acutus C. cataphractus C. intermedius C. johnsoni C. mindorensis C. moreletii C. niloticus C. novaeguineae C. palustris C. porosus C. rhombifer C. siamensis O. tetraspis
|binomialname=
|syn=
|sub=
|alt=
|regionimg=
|pop=
|conservation=
}}
'''Crocodiles''' and their close relations [[alligator]]s, [[caiman]]s and [[gavial]]s, form the family Crocodylidae. Crocodiles are found in areas of higher temperature, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa, India and South-East Asia, Indonesia and Australia, and throughout tropical America. Until recently Nile crocodiles were also found throughout North Africa, and in Palestine <ref>http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Palestine#Fauna</ref>.

In the [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary view]], crocodiles emerged in the late [[triassic]] period from early archosauromorphs, at the same time as [[dinosaur]]s and true [[mammal]]s.

=== Species of crocodile ===

*Nile crocodile ''Crocodylus niloticus'' (Africa)
*American crocodile ''Crocodylus acutus'' ([[Caribbean Sea]], including the southern [[United States]])
*Morelet's crocodile ''Crocodylus moreletii'' (Central America)
*Cuban crocodile ''Crocodylus rhombifer'' (Cuba)
*Mugger crocodile ''Crocodylus palustris'' (India)
*Estuarine crocodile ''Crocodylus porosus'' (Australia and South-East Asia)
*Johnstone's crocodile ''Crocodylus johnsoni'' (Australia)
*Siamese crocodile ''Crocodylus siamensis'' (South-East Asia)
*Philippine crocodile ''Crocodylus mindorensis'' (Philippines)
*Orinoco crocodile ''Crocodylus intermedius'' (South America)
*New Guinea crocodile ''Crocodylus novaeguineae'' (New Guinea)
*Dwarf crocodile ''Osteolaemus tetraspis'' (Sub-Saharan Africa)

== Morphology ==

The name Crocodile came in Ancient Greece, and means 'lizard'. On external appearance, crocodiles resemble large aquatic lizards. However, Crocodiles, and other members of the family Crocodylidae are among the more biologically complex reptiles. Unlike most other reptiles, the Crocodiles possess a four-chambered heart, a feature mostly shown exclusively in birds and mammals. Other features include a diaphragm-like structure, again seen mostly in birds and mammals, and a cerebral cortex - the part of the brain mostly responsible for self-conciousness and the ability to learn. The crocodile, internally, is closer to that of a bird than to lizards, despite looking strikingly similar to other reptiles.

Members of the family Crocodylidae possess streamlined bodies and webbed feet, demonstrating its largely aquatic nature. However, most Crocodilians are also well adapted for terrestrial terrains. They can for example, run (or gallop) at speeds of up to 15 kph.

== Behaviour ==

Crocodiles generally capture their prey, often large [[mammal]]s such as [[antelope]]s, by drifting close to them, motionless, then lunging and dragging their victim underwater, where it is drowned, then left to rot and soften up for later consumption.

Crocodiles typically lay their eggs in a mound of rotting vegetation; the mother will guard the nest from marauding egg-thieves, and solicitously adjust the depth to which the eggs are buried. When the baby crocodiles hatch, she will carry them to the water in her mouth. Hatchlings are precocial (able to fend for themselves at birth), though they stay with the mother for some time after hatching.

Many crocodiles [[aestivation|aestivate]] during summer.

== Crocodile Products ==

Crocodiles are commercially farmed in many places, for their leather, which is made into expensive shoes and handbags, and recently, in Australia, for their meat. In areas where Crocodiles are farmed, there is a strong incentive to protect the natural habitat in order to keep an effecient system where profit is sustained and the crocodile population and local food chains are unharmed.

== Danger to Humans ==
Three species, the Nile crocodile of Africa, the Mugger crocodile of India and the Estuarine crocodile of Australia and South-East Asia, have a long history of attacking humans who enter the crocodile habitats.

== Crocodiles in the Bible ==

Some Biblical scholars have suggested that [[Leviathan]] may have been a crocodile, though others dispute this. [http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/article01.html]

== References ==
<references />

{{Template:Nb zl crocodiles}}
[[Category:Reptiles]]
[[Category:Livestock]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T19:13:17Z

ClearView2011: /* Deleted example to releativity */

Penda

2011-12-03T19:03:43Z

ClearView2011: Viking is a verb, not a noun. The Norse went viking in England.

'''Penda''' was a powerful [[king]] in [[Britain]] in the 7th century AD. His kingdom, covering much of the [[English]] Midlands, was probably called the 'Marc' in English, '[[Mercia]]' in Latin, and meant 'border land' (probably in reference to its border with [[Wales]]). The Mercians were probably mainly [[Angles]] in origin. Penda was a [[pagan]] and fought against the Christian kingdom of [[Northumbria]], defeating its king Edwin in around AD 632. Oswy of [[Northumbria]] led an army that slew Penda at Winwaed (thought to be in or near the city of Leeds) in AD 655, so Penda was the last significant [[pagan]] King of an English kingdom (though when the [[Norse]] took over parts of England (including East Mercia) from the mid 9th century AD, their Kings/Earls were heathen at first).

[[Category:Medieval History]]

Americans United for Separation of Church and State

2011-12-03T19:01:17Z

ClearView2011: Redundant wording.

'''Americans United for Separation of Church and State''' is a [[liberal]] organization which asks the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of conservative Churches which its leadership disagrees with.<ref>[http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr003=h1ym14y5x4.app1b&abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=9193&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241 IRS Should Investigate R.I. Catholic Diocese For Political Intervention, Says Americans United]</ref><ref>[http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=9163&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=2286 IRS Should Investigate Florida Religious Group For Political Intervention, Says Americans United]</ref>

The leader of Americans United is [[Barry Lynn]], who is an ordained minister in the liberal [[United Church of Christ]]. The United Church of Christ invited [[Barack Obama]] to speak at one of its functions and was not criticized by Lynn despite his outrage at more conservative churches for similar political activities.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56418 Activist's church mixes politics, religion]</ref>

==Refererences==
<references/>

[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]

User talk:DMorris

2011-12-03T18:54:35Z

ClearView2011: Undo revision 942569 by MalWhite (talk)Vandalism

== typo ==
the charish on you page should be cherish.

== [[United Nations]] ==

Could you provide a cite for your statement that the U.N. supports mainly socialist, liberal ideas? It's not that I'm disagreeing, but statements like that typically need citations (unless things have changed in the past 3 months). -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 19:39, 6 February 2010 (EST)
:Thought it to be pretty much common sense, but I'll find a citation and add it. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 19:40, 6 February 2010 (EST)
:I found three references and added them. I realize we usually don't reference Wikipedia, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to throw that one in there with the other references. When even Wikipedia says they're socialist... [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 19:58, 6 February 2010 (EST)
::Ehh, it basically is common knowledge. The Wikipedia reference actually helps the argument in this case, methinks. I found another citation that I'll add right now. I appreciate the quick response! -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:00, 6 February 2010 (EST)

==Sissy punks==
Those crybabies don't need additional attention, removed example of bias talk.--[[User:Jpratt|Jpratt]] 17:42, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

:It is never appropriate to reference non-notable vandal sources, either in articles or talk pages. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:55, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
::Okay. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 19:00, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

== Thanks! ==

Not exactly the same sock, but most certainly the sock of other user names! Thanks for noticing. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:43, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

== Anti-matter ==

Pretty snide. I think Roger Schlafly rises above ED, don't you? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:48, 14 June 2010 (EDT)
:Absolutely. I think you took that the wrong way; I was arguing that the topic couldn't possibly be considered encyclopedic if ED and Uncyclopedia is. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 16:08, 14 June 2010 (EDT)
::Gotcha. Thanks. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:10, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

== Public Schools....."Much Less Impressive" ? ==

And your contributions to society would be? Palin directly enriched the citizens of her state by tens of thousands of dollars each, by changing the royalty structure that the oil and gas companies have to pay...that, in and of itself, ranks pretty high in the over-all accomplishments of any elected official, ever. And you should not have forgotten that she is also an evangelical Christian. What were you thinking? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 05:39, 1 October 2010 (EDT)
:I don't consider Sarah Palin "much less impressive," but she did attend public school. I did read the "much less impressive" part, but didn't quite understand that the list was ''only'' to consist of "less impressive" members of society since [[Medal of Honor]] recipents were also listed. I took the ''much less impressive'' to mean that the list was much less impressive, despite that list being longer (at the time) than the list of Before 1962 graduates. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 15:48, 11 October 2010 (EDT)

== Please consider creating these articles ==

=== Please consider Creating a feminism and obesity article ===

Please consider creating a [[Feminism and obesity]] article at Conservapedia and cite this material: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/02/feminism-is-good-for-children.html

In addition, have the web page list some overweight and/or obese feminists with some pictures of some overweight feminists. You can also have the article link to Conservapedia's [[atheism and obesity]] article and then have the [[Atheism and obesity]] article link to the [[Feminism and obesity]] article.

Also, you could also cite a thin Conservative woman (with her picture also featured) criticizing feminism! :)

You could then incorporate the [[Feminism and obesity]] content into the [[Feminism]] article.

I am going to take my 90 day vacation from Conservapedia so I won't be creating this article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:06, 5 February 2011 (EST)

=== Please consider creating a chub (gay culture) article ===

Please create a [[Chub (gay culture)]] article. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girth_and_mirth Then have that article link the [[Atheism and obesity]] article plus we can have the [[Atheism and obesity]] article link to the [[Chub (gay culture)]] article. See if you can find [[Chuck Norris]] saying something negative about homosexuality and then feature his pic on the web page. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:24, 5 February 2011 (EST)

*I will get on these first thing tomorrow. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 21:08, 5 February 2011 (EST)

:Here is an article by Chuck Norris on homosexuality: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=59697 and here is another: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=81195 [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:35, 5 February 2011 (EST)

== Thanks! ==

Thanks for your edit to the worst movies list! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:08, 6 April 2011 (EDT)
:You're welcome. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 00:29, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

== Thanks again! ==

Thanks for fixing up my blundered article on Ada Lovelace. If you're wondering what was going on, I couldn't get through from my home computer, so I had to use a proxy. The proxy was horribly broken, wouldn't let me get through the captcha so I couldn't do the external link, and it also kept breaking the picture link. Then it stopped even letting me see Conservapedia at all. And by then the damage was done and I couldn't undo it. :-( Even a reboot of my machine didn't help. So I contacted Andy by email; he fixed it so I could access CP from my computer, but then the connection went down again. Another round of email; things seem to be OK now. If I were superstitious I would knock on wood, as they say. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:36, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

== What? ==

What were you trying to do [[Block 7afaf.html|here]]?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:17, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
:There's a form at http://www.bugmenot.com/ that wanted me to make a specific URL come to life to verify my authority at Conservapedia.com to block people from posting their login credentials for CP on there, so I did that. Maybe I should have gotten Andy or somebody to do it, but I doubt they'll mind that I did it. Saw a scandal where somebody did that on another website, looked up Conservapedia.com just for giggles, and it turns out there's several vandal accounts listed there. But there won't be for long. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 22:24, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
::Ahh okay - I thought you might be trying to block websites, and I was just gonna say that's not the way at alllll. haha, but good luck in your user blocking!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:41, 29 April 2011 (EDT)
:::[http://www.bugmenot.com/view/conservapedia.com Mission accomplished] [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 22:44, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

==Pithy==
Let's not drag this into the realm of ad hominem insults. If I must change my name, then I will, but I assure you, this "Whiny Little Atheist" has a stack of facts and logic to back up his claims. Short and sweet, I don't want to cause problems with anyone, but you're free to call me whatever you like. Just know that any harsh words you levy will be met with equal recourse.
:You must really want to be blocked. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 21:23, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

Why would I want to be blocked? As far as I can tell, I've done and said nothing contrary to the Conservapedia Commandments. Last I checked, the realm was open to opposing views (Not talk page debates, which is where this seems to be headed rather quickly). Let's not forget that you cast the first stone into the realm of personal attacks, and I had levied no complaints against any users. I only had an issue with the way atheists were unfairly represented, and with the lack of reasonable evidence to support the claims made in the thread.

But again, to be clear, I will not mince words. I do not want to cause problems, like I've already said; however, if you do choose to insult me in the future, I will not refrain from rebuttal. Let us hope we can both be civil about this and move past Religious differences. [[User:KiloByter|KiloByter]] 22:08, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
:You just need to familiarize yourself with our rules here at Conservapedia, and I recommend you refrain from religious debate. We are a drama free wiki, and we don't have time to endlessly debate about religion. By the way, you can sign your posts using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. I'm not trying to attack you personally, just trying to point you in the right direction. Otherwise I would have just blocked you. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 22:16, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

==[[Essay:Resisting Socialist Landfills]]==
Hi, I just found this essay that you wrote. I was wondering if you based it off of my [[Essay: Real Environmentalism]], since it makes most of the same points.Thanks. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 10:55, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
:I'm just going to go with intelligent, conservative minds think alike. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 16:31, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

== [[MySpace]] ==

Good catch. I found one earlier on the Greatest Conservative Movies list on ''Space Jam'' where it said Michael Jackson rather than Michael Jordan starred. Kinda makes you wonder how much spare time these vandals have.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 23:32, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. Sysops can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:I'm interested. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 14:33, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ok, I will list you on the page. Iduan is on vacation. The panel can start when he gets back. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
::: (: [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 14:40, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

== The blocking policy refinement panel is convening on 8/17/11 ==

The blocking policy refinement panel is beginning its proceedings on 8/17/11 here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Blocking_policy_refinement_panel_proceedings [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:20, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

== The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun ==

The panel proceeding have begun here: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings]] You can start making your edits to the page should you wish to do so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:01, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Block request ==

Could you please block someone with an inappropriate name?
[[User:SexiiAshIafIyJK]]

thanks. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 17:50, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
:I would have, but JPatt beat me to it . [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 17:54, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

== Did we get them all? ==

Thanks for the help in reverting a vandal's edits - did we get them all? I was working from the most recent back, and you were going from earliest - did we meet in the middle? [[User:Taj|Taj]] 09:51, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:It looks like it; I don't see anymore edits from the user that say "Top".{{unsigned|DMorris}}
:::I don't understand what you mean by '''"Top"'''. I don't see anything that says that - where do I look? Thanks! [[User:Taj|Taj]] 15:23, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::I wish these idiots would stop this nonsense. Blanking pages is quite juvenile.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 13:22, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
::::It wasn't quite blanking, this person added some gibberish. Who knows why? But there is an "undo" button that makes it really easy to just erase the last entry and make it go back to what it was before. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 15:25, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:::It's annoying, but it also gives me something to do to pass the time: revert their juvenile nonsense and report to their ISPs. Hopefully some day I'll prove myself enough for Andy to give me checkuser; I'm perfectly okay with asking the senior admins for the logs, but it'd be easier if I had checkuser myself. But I don't ever see us being vandal free; there's always going to be eleven year olds that hear that they can change the contents of wikis and get inspired to mess around. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 13:53, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Yeah, that's true: there will always be liberal vandals trying to attack the site. I do hope you can become an Administrator eventually; you seem to be really good at what you do. I've been trying to get image uploading privileges here for a while, so good luck!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:01, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
::::An aside: it seems those liberal vandals (likely the same guys) came by again earlier and messed up some pages with vulgar images. They nearly destroyed another conservative wiki. I think we need more adminstrators who are dedicated to stopping these guys and seeing from your work here you would be an excellent candidate. Personally, I think these liberal vandals just need to get a life. In any case, good luck on your endeavor!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 13:16, 16 November 2011 (EST)
:::::If Mr. Schlafly were ever to make me a senior administrator with CheckUser rights, I would see to it that every vandal that ever touched Conservapedia and continued vandalizing after being warned was reported to his/her network operator. Vandalism is always going to happen, it's the one's that obsessively do it over and over again that get annoying, and even boring. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 13:20, 16 November 2011 (EST)
::::::Yeah, that would do them some good. I assume you've seen some of the vulgar vandalism some of the last batch did. You have to be careful reverting that rubbish without Rollback, y'know. I just don't know why these characters have to repeatedly do this stuff. You would think they would have something better to do than repeated vandalism, like doing stuff with their family or friends... In any case, good luck on your endeavor!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 13:24, 16 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::There's different reasons why vandals do what they do... A lot of the CP vandals do it to protest our political and religious beliefs, and/or because they hate us. The persistent one's that won't give up probably have mental illness. Then you have the common vandals that you see in any wiki, the middle school girls that think an article would look prettier with hearts and smiles, the one's who want to make a star out of themselves/their friends/a group that they're a part of by spamming their names or links to their websites on articles, the one's who want to just randomly attack someone or something they don't like by writing negative comments about it on here, and the one's that are just curious about how wikis work and decide to start changing things around to see what will happen, and sometimes they mess things up in the process. All except the curious ones that mess things up by accident are sad little souls who could really benefit from reading the Lord's good book or going to church. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 13:47, 16 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::::For example, I've been doing vandal patrol at Wikipedia the last couple of days, and I encountered a sad little girl in Indiana that felt compelled to trash about six other people and declare that she is pretty from her high school computer and a sad little kid in Texas that somehow thought it to be funny to add vulgarities to articles. Those are just the two recent ones that stick out in my mind that I bothered to file abuse reports on. Why these sad souls do such things I don't know [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 13:54, 16 November 2011 (EST)

== Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback here ==

Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback [http://conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Panel_members.2C_please_give_your_feedback_below HERE]

Your assistance would be much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:08, 16 November 2011 (EST)

Monticello

2011-12-03T18:51:18Z

ClearView2011:

[[Image:Montecello.jpg|275px|right]]
'''Monticello''', located in Charlottesville, [[Virginia]], was the estate of [[Thomas Jefferson]].<ref>[http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/building_map.cgi? Map of Monticello location]</ref> The word 'Monticello' in Italian means "Little Mountain". The mansion is placed on a mountain in view of the [[University of Virginia]].

In 1768 Jefferson unfolded his plans for a Palladian villa, and the work on the building continued until 1824, two years before his death. The construction of the building was sporadic and slow, partly because of debt that Jefferson had accumulated throughout his political career. When Jefferson was president, half of the rooms were not plastered and many lacked floors. <ref>Paul Johnson, A History of the American People, page. 246</ref> Historian Paul Johnson wrote on the complexities of the building,
<blockquote>
"The house was full of ingenious but amateurish Heath Robinson devices such as this, many of which do not work to this day. The library consisted not of shelves but of individual boxes stacked on top of each other, a weird arrangement. The dining-room looked into the tea-room and was only closed off by glass doors, shut in the cold weather. The Dome Rome proved an insoluble problem. There was no way to heat it as a chimney flue would have marred its external appearance-the whole point of its existence-so Jefferson could not install a stove."<ref>Paul Johnson, A History of the American People, page. 246</ref>
</blockquote>

The building was constructed with over a half-million bricks which were baked in the Monticello kilns.
While serving as Minister to France, Jefferson collected trees, paintings and furniture and brought them to his Virginia estate.<ref>http://www.aboutfamouspeople.com/article1015.html </ref>

In 1819, due to financial collapse, Jefferson attempted to but failed to sell Monticello.<ref> Paul Johnson, A History of the American People, page. 248</ref> He died with over $100,000 in debt. After his death, practically everything at Monticello was sold in a auction. In 1926 however, the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation bought much of the property back.

Monticello is currently open to the public

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Buildings]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T18:49:29Z

ClearView2011: /* Deleted example to releativity */

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T18:48:55Z

ClearView2011: /* Deleted example to releativity */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

==Path Independence and Photons==
Wait, so time is some sort of vector field such that when you integrate it you get time? And that vector field is conservative? I've never heard of such a thing... 
As well, you state: "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." Yes, if you plug in the formula for non-relativistic, Newtonian momentum, you get zero, but SR gives you the equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2. Plug m=0 in. You get E=pc. So, the momentum is nonzero. That's a very well-known result... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 12:06, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:So should I take the "counter example" down...? Not to be rude but can someone at least respond to me? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
::Take it down, then if someone reverts (which is likely) it'll provoke a short discussion that probably won't reach a consensus. Regardless, you're unlikely to succeed in keeping it changed. I'm not trying to discourage, go ahead and try changing it, I'm just letting you know what to expect. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:33, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:::These are interesting points worthy of further discussion. As to the first point, however, merely asking two questions is not persuasive to me.

:::As to the second point, I find the argument somewhat circular. Is the energy equation cited verified by any experiment, or is it merely definitional? If merely definitional, then it does not provide a way for calculating actual momentum.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Well answer them. The point I'm making is that there is no vector field such that when integrates it, one gets time. I had never heard of it until then. I am asking you to enlighten me.
 
::::And as a matter of fact there is! The equation is E=hf where E is the energy of the photon, f is the frequency of the photon, and h is just a proportionality constant (known as Planck's constant). And it has been experimentally verified. It explains the spectrum from blackbody radiation and it explains the photoelectric effect. And if I recall correctly, your camera uses the photoelectric effect. These things are quite well known... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:55, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::Oh, and I forgot to mention--the Compton effect is explained by photons. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::Please address my more substantive point: has your equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2 been experimentally verified, or is it simply definitional?

:::::::First of all, will you please answer my question...? What is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? And oops. Misread your question. And no, it's not "definitional," it's from the relativistic expressions of energy and momentum... (And yes, those have been experimentally verified--if I recall correctly, using those equations, you can predict what can happen (i.e. speeds) when elementary particles are created. But I'm not particle physicist) Once you have those, just do a little algebra and you get that equation. And I hope you're not going to deny basic algebra....
 
:::::::Again, all this is well known.... Out of curiosity have you ever actually studied relativity or this photon stuff? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:39, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I've removed the counter-example of photons...I think I've provided a satisfactory explanation to Schlafly (and he's not responding for some reason...) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:50, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Schlafly, I saw you re-added the "counter-example." Will you please respond to me? Are you seriously just going to keep it there and refuse to discuss this at all? Wow and you claim that we're not open-minded.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:45, 9 November 2011 (EST)

::::::::::Andy, there is no "counter-example of photons." Photons are not mentioned in the list. But are you referring to this counterexample:

:::::::::::28.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.

::::::::::Let's be clear about what the dispute is first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 11 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::::::Yeah, that's the one. Sorry. Poorly-worded. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:29, 14 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::::::Will someone please tell me why (a) SR/GR promotes (moral) relativism, (b) photons aren't legit even though I've just pointed that your argument was wrong (maybe that's a bit generous. To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, I can't even say it's wrong...) and (c) what is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 10:26, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==

It may be jumping the gun to put the finding from Friday as evidence against GR. The results have yet to be duplicated - duplicability is needed for a claim to have scientific merit - and have yet to be carefully peer reviewed. The results are significant at the 95% CI but that means there's a 1 in 20 chance they're actually inaccurate. Given how many measurements are made at the LHC some are going to be both statistically significant and incorrect. It may be more prudent to wait to see if it's a one off or measurement error. I propose waiting at least until other particle acceleration labs can attempt to duplicate the results to make any judgement; after all, that's what CERN is doing
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 00:18, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:I disagree. The opposition to the results from CERN -- which confirm prior results from another laboratory which were not as precise -- is unreasonable. It's not necessary to continue to pretend that Relativity is true when there is so much evidence against it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::CERN itself hasn't even confirmed the results. The data was published a lot quicker than data usually is because if it is accurate, then it changes the majority of physics laws discovered in the past century. The theory of relativity is not the only theory/law which involves the speed of light, electromagnetism does as well. Because of this, CERN wanted other scientists to try and find a flaw in the experiment quickly so that if there is a flaw, it is found quickly, and if there isn't, then scientists can begin determining what needs to change in order to accomodate this. Once the data has been properly analysed, without prematurely jumping to conclusions, then it would be fair to say that the neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light. But something to keep in mind: this is not the first experiment done with neutrinos, all of the prior ones having travelled slower than the speed of light. If you do an experiment 500 times, and each results has a 1/1000 chance of being inaccurate, there is a 40% chance that at least one result will be inaccurate. If they find an error in the experiment (such as a piece of the measuring equipment being broken, or poor calibration of equipment, or leftover neutrinos from previous experiments, or any other impacting error), then wouldn't it make conservapedia look silly for jumping to a conclusion too quickly? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The CERN experiment is not the only one suggesting faster-than-c travel. Moreover, there is no basis for doubting the news that something travels faster than c. Most of the objections in the media are based in an irrational clinging to Relativity. Hence the counterexample is being restored ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Looks like they've found the problem already: there was a flaw with the experiment.http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php This article basically says that they used GPS to measure the locations and the times. However, because the satellite used moves at a different speed to the Earth, relativity needs to be taken into account. Usually, relativity has no significant effect until speeds get nearish the speed of light. However, the neutrinos travelled 60 nanoseconds faster than light. Because it's nanoseconds, the speed difference of the Earth and the satellite is enough that relativity affects the experiment at the nanosecond level. Scientists have done calculations to determine how this changes the results (as because of the flaw, the results they got weren't actually accurate), and found that the neutrinos actually travelled for 64 seconds longer than they previously thought, making their speed very slightly less than the speed of light. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 18:02, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

: No, this explanation has not been accepted. There have been many other papers with other explanations. The jury is still out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:33, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Looking back, I made a mistake. I said general relativity's prediction was outside the measurement uncertainty for the fourth experiment (Anderson et al., 1992). I misread it. GR prediciton: 42.98 ±0.04, Observation: 43.13 ± 0.14. They actually do overlap. So general relativity is four for four. My bad. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:41, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: I took a look at the JPL link above but did not find any reference to the perihelion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::::: I'm pretty sure there's no reference to the perihelion because it's the raw data, without analysis. If the data was mapped to show Mercury's location, it would (presumably) show a perihelion. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There's a difference between relativity and quantum mechanics (which explains the above observation). If you only took high school physics--you have about two hundred years of catching up to do on the field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Ummmm...==

Physics has come a long way since Albert Einstein published his theories of relativity. Actually, there are quite a few hypothetical paradigms within modern physics that would allow a particle of sufficiently high energy to apparently travel faster than light. I'm not a physicist (as I've said on other pages, I'm a biologist), but I am peripherally familiar with a few of the better-supported ideas. I suggest you read up on M theory and string theory. At the risk of butchering the explanation (I am NOT a physicist), I will say that within the paradigm of M theory and string theory, observing high-energy particles moving slightly faster than light is not all that surprising. That said, the authors of the paper describing the "faster than light" neutrinos, admit up front that the numbers they got was probably the result of some sort of experimental error--the results need to be repeatable in order to be scientific. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

: Science can advance with one observation, and it's not necessary to wait until it is repeated before discussing and learning from it. How quickly (if ever) was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] repeated?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:: The Michelson-Morley experiment was first done in 1887. It was repeated by them and by others many times in the next few years. Illingworth and Kennedy came up with a variant that was more sensitive and could test for certain exotic explanations. They did that very soon after the initial experiment. Dayton Miller also did such experiments and continued to do them even after Einstein's work was completed. Miller acknowledged the results of the experiments but remained a committed opponent to special relativity. One of Miller's experiments did actually turn up some interesting results but his later experiments and other work failed to replicate it and it seems to have been a statistical anomaly. Others continued to duplicate versions of the MM experiment because the data from it can be used to test aspects of special relativity and other ideas. So duplicated forms have continued right up to the present day although generally using carefully tuned lasers as the light sources which give much more precision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Some experiments done following the MM experiment (not all listed, only some early ones and some recent ones): Morley-Miller 1902-1904 (published 1904), Miller 1921, Miller 1923-1924, Antonini et al 2005, Stanwix et al 2006, Eisele et al 2009, Herrmann et al 2009. Plus others between them, just listing some early ones and some recent ones. And it is usually necessary to wait until an experiment is repeated before accepting it to be accurate. A single observation, that can't be repeated, usually has an explanation within the current understanding of physics. For example, a network of ravines and gullies was observed in the 1870s on the surface of Mars, and there was wide speculation about their origin. An explanation suggested in the early 1900s wasn't proved until the 1960s, that the ravines and gullies were in actuality an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blowing across the surface in the strong winds. Another example of a 'discovery' that later turned out to be false was the existence of Vulcan, a planet between Mercury and the Sun. A single observation, unconfirmed by repetition, does not indicate a discovery. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::: Yes, the M-M experiment was repeated many times. It had to be done at different times of the year, at different altitudes, with different materials, etc. Eg, maybe the length contraction might have been different for wood and brass.
::: There are physicists who have suggested faster than light particles, but string theory and M theory are Lorentz invariant and useless on the issue. The string theorists would definitely be surprised by anything faster than light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: Claimed results from a single experiment have been proven wrong before (e.g, the claims of producing [[cold fusion]] in 1989). It makes sense to see if an experiment is replicated before throwing out an extremely well tested theory. It's very suspicious that we haven't seen neutrinos going faster than the speed of light before this. Experimenters are only human beings and could easily have made a mistake or forget to include something in their calculations. The claimed velocity is only a tiny fraction lager than c and might easily be explained by not taking into account some systematic error.
:::: If Mr. Schlafly's other 36 "counterexamples" are so strong then I don't see why he so badly needs the example of an unreplicated experiment whose data is still in the process of being analyzed. (When Einstein was asked about the book '100 Authors Against Einstein' he responded: "If I were wrong, it would only have taken one".) --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 11:27, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: If the experiment is disproved by subsequent experiments, then that particular counterexample can be removed. But the insistence on clinging to the [[theory of relativity]] when the available evidence is to the contrary is unjustified. Einstein's quote is inapplicable to this issue: the context of Einstein's quote refers to a government attempt to discredit his theory. His quote does apply to government efforts to deny scientific evidence today, such as the attempt by the [[NCI]] to deny the [[abortion]]-[[breast cancer]] link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Gee, the experiment counts as a counterexample even before the facts are in. What a surprise....
:::::: I'm not sure if the German government was behind '100 Authors Against Einstein', but even if it were it's completely irrelevant. The folly wasn't that it was done by the government; it was that if relativity was wrong one good argument would suffice. The inclusion of this unconfirmed experimental result just shows how this list of "counterexamples" values quantity over quality. Rather than making a few strong arguments it's a list of 37 random tidbits. '''You're expecting to overturn one of science's best theories with something that can fit inside a Twitter post?''' The reasoning for many points' inclusion are not well explained and counterarguments are not addressed (e.g, Hawking radiation is called a "[c]ontrived explanation" with no justification whatsoever). I suspect the "conciseness" of the points is just a reflection of its author's short attention span. I'll report to the Worldwide Relativity Cabal that we have nothing to fear from... oops. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:46, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Thank you MatthewQ! Oh, and Mr. Schlafly, the evidence does not support a link between abortion and breast cancer. You may find good sources on the topic [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733063/?tool=pmcentrez here], [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15835-2/fulltext here], and [http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814 here]. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 08:11, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::: As for redoing the M-M experiment, the [[LIGO]] experiment can be seen as a $400M modern M-M experiment. While the M-M failed to detect the motion of the Earth, LIGO has failed to detect motion in other galaxies. You may be interested in this new paper reporting on an NSF grant to teach high school students about LIGO detecting gravity waves. This is just to be ready in case LIGO ever succeeds in detecting anything, I guess. [http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3720] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 06:08, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== A few sections that should be removed... ==

12: For this point to be right, things need to have started VERY VERY small, which is impossible if Creationism is right. This creates an inconsistency within Conservapedia and should be removed.
26: The first part is wrong due to GPSs. In order to be more accurate, they take into account relativity, and hence relativity has produced something useful. The rest of it is repeated in 18. Hence, as everything in 26 is either wrong or repeated, it should be removed.
28: Relativity does not require everything with 0 mass to have 0 momentum. It actually takes into account that light, despite having 0 mass, has momentum.
29: This is actually wrong. The age of each twin is independent of the path travel, it is dependent only on the acceleration they experience. Therefore, this point is wrong.
Any comments or disagreements? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 22:02, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:On point 12, physicists themselves admit that relativity contradicts quantum mechanics shortly after the Big Bang. So even relativists would (or should) concede the validity of this counterexample.

:On point 26, GPS's were not developed as a result of relativity. This has been discussed at length on this site in the past. No relativists were involved in the engineering of GPS's; any differences in timing on the satellites relative to ground are more easily corrected by synchronization rather than theoretical predictions.

:Will review the other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

::I fully agree with all this. Some of the stuff in this page literally left my head hurting pretty badly from facepalming so hard.

::And, Schlafly, how does this make relativity wrong? Newtonian physics is wrong at quantum levels too. Should we add a "Counterexamples to Newtonian Mechanics" page and put something like that in there too? Of course not--it's an excellent approximation for things on the everyday scale. Same thing with GR.

::No, they were not developed because of relativity, but they were developed taking relativity into account. The people who built it didn't know the specifics, but they knew the corrections from relativity were there and they took them into account. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:53, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

::::I concur. Rather, arguing "counterexamples" is a fine way to demonstrate the weaknesses, inconsistencies, or future directions of inquiry regarding any scientific paradigm. However, it is a logical fallacy to say that "these are the problems with hypothesis A, therefore hypothesis B ''must'' be true". For a position to be effectively argued, one must present empirical evidence in support of an alternative hypothesis. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 00:56, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::A bigger logical fallacy occurs when someone insists or thinks that an alternative hypothesis B must exist before disproving a hypothesis A.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:14, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::Good point. However, when a hypothesis is not supported the scientific process usually then entails asking the question of why it was not supported, and then forming a new hypothesis that once again fits all of the available data. This is why scientific understanding of even the most hard and fast paradigms can change so dramatically from one generation to the next (or, occasionally, from one experiment to the next). The most exciting science gets done when a well-reasoned hypothesis is rejected--simply because it opens the door to so many new possibilities.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 13:01, 14 November 2011 (EST)

== A couple more problems ==

These went up after I posted the other section so I didn't know what to do. If you would prefer I post it there, then sorry. I'm new to wikis so I don't know proper etiquette and perhaps a missed something in the guidelines :)

Anyway, first thing, you state: "It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."

...Honestly, I am speechless about this. Again, this was taken down but now someone put it back up... You guys honestly think this statement is true? There is no connection between the two--the only thing they have in common is the name "relativity." What, you think that people's morals depend on their frame of reference and change by the relativistic <math> \gamma (\equiv 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2})</math> factor or something?! I am truly shocked by this...What connection is there? Where is the equation that predicts this?

Secondly: "Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light." Nope. Things can't travel at the speed of light, according to SR. Relativity explicitly states that things cannot go faster than light. If you drop this, then of course there are going to be going to be inconsistencies with SR...And that thread only talks about things going at the speed of light. What's the problem with solenoids travelling near c? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 16:52, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:Can someone please tell me what the link between moral relativism and GR/SR is...? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:04, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::Because <s>God</s> <s>psychotic rambling homophobic momma's boy</s> Andy Schlafly said so. You have to turn off your <s>indoctrinated</s> educated mind... --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:36, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

== At first glance ==

There are so many problems with this page I don't know where to start. Whomever wrote it is obviously clueless about science and its

methods. A few of the problems include:

1. Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.

The lack of experimental confirmation ''so far'' of gravity waves does NOT falsify the theory. Absence of evidence is not evidence of

absence.

3. Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of

Relativity.

Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed.

7. The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds relativity

Untrue. The EFEs contain a term (the cosmological constant) that fully accounts for accelerated expansion.

10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass

What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem. ?

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

AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster

than light.

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

See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not

"true and verifiable".

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

Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1.

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not

falsify a theory.

26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the

theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.

Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity.

27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction.

This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.

The priniciple of isotropy does not falisfy Relativity. The theory itself accounts for, and predicts, the difference in observed inertia.

28. 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.

And Relativity also predicts that photons have non-zero momentum. Relativistic systems can have non-zero momentum even with no

rest mass, due to ''mass-energy equivalence''. Relativity correctly predicts the momentum of a massless particle as p = h*f/c = h/λ.

31. The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows

down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to

be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity

Incorrect, as this only takes Special Relativity into account. This is a common fallacy. It is the acceleration required to return the twin

that accounts for the difference in clocks and is explained/predicted by General Relativity. One must take both SRT and GRT into

account.

32. Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right,

theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.

Fields do not constitute an "aether". The EM field exists (and was explained/predicted by Maxwell long before Eistein).

34 (a). In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens.

How is such an account "true and verifiable"?

34(b). This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.

Something that is "likely" does not falsify a scientific theory.

35. Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the

properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.

This is not an argument against applied mathematics, not against Relativity per se.

37. Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding.

This does not falsify the theory.

~~csmcmillion

:'''Reply''': by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack, you lost credibility from the get-go. A quick review of your points confirms it:

:1. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It is when billions are spent on many years of looking. Surely you wouldn't think a lost item is in your backpack if you spent time looking for it there and could not find it.

:3. "Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed." Experiments '''''are''''' confirmation in themselves.

:7. "the cosmological constant... fully accounts for accelerated expansion." Reliance on a cosmological constant has failed before.

:10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass. "What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem?" Oh please. None of these counterexamples is candidly addressed in physics departments because these counterexamples cast doubt on a theory preferred for political reasons. Anyone in a physics department who expresses doubt about the theory of relativity would be thereby ending his own academic career.

:13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement. "AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster than light." Relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance (which cannot seriously be disputed in QM) whether a type of information is transmitted or not.

:14. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51. "See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not 'true and verifiable.'" There are no [[Counterexamples to the Bible]], so this conflict is a serious one.

:15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching. "Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1." And see my answer to #1.

:18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics. "The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not falsify a theory." The failure of the theory to produce is strong evidence against its validity.

:26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. "Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity." A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I'll address your other responses as my time permits. For now:

"by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack"

Stating the obvious is not an ad hominem attack. I didn't say the author was an "idiot". Anyone who honestly thinks that because "devices" have not been engineered based upon a scientific theory somehow ''falsifies'' that theory ''is'' truly clueless (maybe ignorant would have been a better word) of science and the scientific method. A correct scientific theory must explain previous observations and correctly predict those to come. No where is there a requirement that it lead to engineered "devices".

14. "The action-at-a-distance by Jesus"

I should have added: The AAAD by Jesus is (usually) considered a miracle - a suspension of natural law. So I'm not clear on how the suspension of natural law could be considered a counterexample to a natural law to begin with.

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

I should have asked a simple question on this one: Have you ever asked an astronomer, cosmologist or theoretical physicist if s/he has had insights from Relativity? Please - find ''one'' that hasn't had deep insight as a result.

"A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--Andy Schlafly 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)"

So, adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible, which hindered technical progress for more than a thousand years, indicates that the Bible is almost certainly wrong. Thank you '''so much''' for clearing that up. ~~csmcmillion

:Take a look at [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]. When you post more substantive comments, then I'll respond to them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:37, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I agree that "relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance", but not that AAAD "cannot seriously be disputed in QM". There is no QM experiment that show AAAD. There are interpretations of QM that seem to imply AAAD, and respected physicists who believe in those interpretations and hence in AAAD. But QM does not imply AAAD as there are also relativistic interpretations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:27, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:QM experiments have shown that a pair of spinning, entangled photons can be separated a great distance, and that the mere observation of the spin of one of those photons immediately removes the uncertainty about the spin of the other photon a far distance away. All attempts to deny that [[action-at-a-distance]] reality have failed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:: Yes, the photon experiment is correct. Some people do interpret the observation of one photon as affecting the other photon. But there is no proof of that. You could prove it if the observation transmitted information, but no one can do that. Other interpretations do not require AAAD. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:47, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Andy: Why did you delete RSchlafly's most recent comment? RSchlafly: I believe you are correct. A little research on my part shows numerous refutations to the assertions made on this page, going back a couple of years:

http://skullsinthestars.com/2010/08/09/right-wing-refutations-of-relativity-really-really-wrong/

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/6253

I'm beginning to see why people are telling me not to waste my time trying to contribute to this site.
:All you're doing is making your own "assertions without clarification". We've had these arguments before, and these arguments were created by people who refuse to listen to what we say or refuse to read any of the sources we provide. And it's tiresome. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:44, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:User:csmcmillion, it's not a discussion when someone won't use his own words to explain his views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:49, 13 November 2011 (EST)

::And it's not a discussion when sysops repeatedly delete comments, as you just did. ~~csmcmillion
:::And what exactly did I delete? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Just wanted to add to this: When has <math>\Lambda</math> failed? It's a perfectly legitimate term in the EFE's, as csmcmillion has stated. The righthand side of it is (in <math>G=c=1</math> units) is <math>8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta }</math>. You need something on the left which is a measure of curvature, i.e., the Einstein tensor <math>G^{\alpha \beta}</math>. Why the Einstein tensor? Why not the Ricci tensor? Why not the scalar curvature times the metric? The reason is that the stress-energy tensor (T) has to have zero divergence: <math>\nabla_{\beta} T^{\alpha \beta} = 0 </math>. The Einstein tensor has zero divergence as well. But, we also have <math> \nabla_{\gamma} g^{\alpha \beta} = 0</math>. So we can safely add in <math>\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta}</math> to the left hand side of the EFE without violating local conservation of energy-momentum. Using this gives <math>G^{\alpha \beta}+\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta} = 8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta}. </math> [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:46, 15 November 2011 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The "The observed lack of curvature in overall space" is not an "unobserved" phenomenon. Accordingly, it has been reverted along with the others. Looking for something that should be there under a theory, but not finding it there as predicted, is a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:50, 30 November 2011 (EST)

:[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], sorry, yes, I was being a bit overzealous on that one. However, I think the principle holds - many of the concepts listed are not counterexamples. Starting with number one: relativity predicts gravity waves and predicts that they will be extremely difficult to detect. Now I hear you say that's a pretty lousy kind of prediction - and you're right - but it still doesn't make it a counterexample. The same goes for the entry on gravitons (additionally, they're a prediction of quantum theory, not relativity, but that's for another phase of editing).
:It may be that further categorizing is necessary. For example, issues like the Twin Paradox and the Ehrenfest Paradox are not strictly unobserved phenomena either. Item 37, failure to solve the equations, is a problem for mathematics, not necessarily for relativity.
:Perhaps a simpler solution would be to rename the whole article, perhaps to 'Counterarguments to Relativity'. That way the article doesn't look silly by listing things that clearly aren't counterexamples, and also is open to inclusion of a broader range of criticisms of the theory. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:50, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:: I agree with QPR, as upon thinking about it, 'counterexamples' does not accurately describe the things on the list. And looking for something predicted and not finding it is only a counterexample/counterargument if it is predicted to be in a specific place, and when looking there, it isn't found. Hence, not finding gravity waves despite looking for them doesn't mean they don't exist. Many things were thought to be myths or non-existent until they were found, including giraffes. But I also disagree with QPR in that categorizing the list is unnecessary, and would result in needless discussions about where certain points belong, rather than more productive discussions. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::: I don't think that counterexamples is the best word either. My suggestion would be to leave the title as is, but to split the list into ''paradoxes'' and ''anomalies''. They maybe people would have a better idea what to expect from each item. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:43, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Response to the above: the list is of "counterexamples". These are examples that are counter to the theory. Other terms, like "paradox" or "anomaly", capture neither the concept of "example" nor of it being "counter" to the theory. The term "paradox" arises in philosophy, but this isn't philosophy. Relativity is a theory that pretends to be correct in every case, but it isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:24, 3 December 2011 (EST)

== Deleted example to releativity ==

Hello, I added a counter example to relativity that was removed, despite it being valid. My counter example was that the special theory of relativity predicts that mass is a form of energy and they are interchangeable. But if this were true the huge amount of energy stored in common matter would have been utilised by now in power stations and weaponry.

The problem is, it's been over 100 years since this theory was published and not one power station that utilises the interchange of mass and energy predicted by relativity has actually been built.

However, this counter example was removed because a member claimed that these do exist. Now this leaves us with a dichotomy. Do we...
A) Admit that these power stations exist (which they don't) and therefore acknowledge the special theory of relativity is accurate and true, or
B) We keep the counter example included that no power station that utilises special relativity exists, and therefore it is a sign that relativity is false.

I think we should vote for B on this issue. It would be like inventing the motor engine, but not building cars! --[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 12:36, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:Actually these power stations DO exist and have done for decades; they're called "nuclear reactors" and they generate heat by turning mass into energy. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 12:45, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::If these stations do exist, then how come Albert Einstein admitted of the inability to apply the predictions of his OWN theory? I quote "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable".

::Next you'll be telling me that we can do the physically impossible and generate electricity by fusing atoms to form heavier atoms too.

::Let's face it, special relativity has no practical application in providing energy. If it were, mass and energy would be seen interchanging all the time. F will ''always'' equal MA, mass can neither increase or decrease by being converted into energy; observations of non-zero mass particles accelerated to ''exactly'' the speed of light prove this.--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:01, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::The stations exist, hundreds of them, all over the world. Some of them even fit into ships and submarines. Nuclear fission reactors produce power by converting rest mass into electromagnetic and kinetic energy, exactly in accordance with e=mc2. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:06, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::::''I'' don't believe that. Do you ''know'' they exist for sure? Have you ''really'' ever been to one? ''I'm'' sure they employ some kind of ''a'' clever trick. Otherwise Newton, unchallenged as the most intelligent ''scientist'' of all time, would see his second law of motion proven wrong. The second law of motion is a law that is known to always hold true by centuries of accurate tests. These power stations can not exist, the laws of physics don't allow it!--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:18, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::::I don't care what you believe. Yes they exist, and yes I've been to one. If you tell me where you live I'll give you directions to the nearest one, and you can either visit or call their press officer. Either way they'll be happy to explain how they turn mass into energy and generate power with the heat that's released. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:23, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::::::These aren't my beliefs, these are scientific facts. Newton's laws have been established for centuries and have never been challenged. Yet if they are true, then nuclear power stations can't exist because that would require the M of F=MA to be a variable quantity directly related to A.

::::::As I put more energy into the acceleration of an object, the mass does not increase, it cannot increase. Why? Because mass and energy cannot be interchanged. If this were true, then no non-zero mass particle could ever be accelerated to the speed of light. Non-zero mass particles are accelerated to the speed of light every day at particle colliders worldwide.

::::::If what you say is true, then we would have to get rid of this entire page because it invalidates every counter example.--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:43, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::::::You're not listening, are you? Conversion of mass into energy, in accordance with e=mc2 is how nuclear reactors work. Your counterexample was removed because it's INVALID. What part of this don't you understand? Newton's Second Law is irrelevant to the point you're trying to make, by the way.

:::::::"Yet if they are true, then nuclear power stations can't exist" Epic fail. Nuclear power stations DO exist.

:::::::"If what you say is true, then we would have to get rid of this entire page because it invalidates every counter example" Why? Just because a theory is false overall, that doesn't mean that parts of it aren't true. Parts of Darwin's tehory are true; living things DO inherit characteristics from their parents and those characteristics DO affect their chances of survival. Despite that, evolution is still false. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:48, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T18:46:04Z

ClearView2011: /* Deleted example to releativity */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

==Path Independence and Photons==
Wait, so time is some sort of vector field such that when you integrate it you get time? And that vector field is conservative? I've never heard of such a thing... 
As well, you state: "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." Yes, if you plug in the formula for non-relativistic, Newtonian momentum, you get zero, but SR gives you the equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2. Plug m=0 in. You get E=pc. So, the momentum is nonzero. That's a very well-known result... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 12:06, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:So should I take the "counter example" down...? Not to be rude but can someone at least respond to me? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
::Take it down, then if someone reverts (which is likely) it'll provoke a short discussion that probably won't reach a consensus. Regardless, you're unlikely to succeed in keeping it changed. I'm not trying to discourage, go ahead and try changing it, I'm just letting you know what to expect. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:33, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:::These are interesting points worthy of further discussion. As to the first point, however, merely asking two questions is not persuasive to me.

:::As to the second point, I find the argument somewhat circular. Is the energy equation cited verified by any experiment, or is it merely definitional? If merely definitional, then it does not provide a way for calculating actual momentum.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Well answer them. The point I'm making is that there is no vector field such that when integrates it, one gets time. I had never heard of it until then. I am asking you to enlighten me.
 
::::And as a matter of fact there is! The equation is E=hf where E is the energy of the photon, f is the frequency of the photon, and h is just a proportionality constant (known as Planck's constant). And it has been experimentally verified. It explains the spectrum from blackbody radiation and it explains the photoelectric effect. And if I recall correctly, your camera uses the photoelectric effect. These things are quite well known... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:55, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::Oh, and I forgot to mention--the Compton effect is explained by photons. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::Please address my more substantive point: has your equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2 been experimentally verified, or is it simply definitional?

:::::::First of all, will you please answer my question...? What is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? And oops. Misread your question. And no, it's not "definitional," it's from the relativistic expressions of energy and momentum... (And yes, those have been experimentally verified--if I recall correctly, using those equations, you can predict what can happen (i.e. speeds) when elementary particles are created. But I'm not particle physicist) Once you have those, just do a little algebra and you get that equation. And I hope you're not going to deny basic algebra....
 
:::::::Again, all this is well known.... Out of curiosity have you ever actually studied relativity or this photon stuff? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:39, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I've removed the counter-example of photons...I think I've provided a satisfactory explanation to Schlafly (and he's not responding for some reason...) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:50, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Schlafly, I saw you re-added the "counter-example." Will you please respond to me? Are you seriously just going to keep it there and refuse to discuss this at all? Wow and you claim that we're not open-minded.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:45, 9 November 2011 (EST)

::::::::::Andy, there is no "counter-example of photons." Photons are not mentioned in the list. But are you referring to this counterexample:

:::::::::::28.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.

::::::::::Let's be clear about what the dispute is first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 11 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::::::Yeah, that's the one. Sorry. Poorly-worded. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:29, 14 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::::::Will someone please tell me why (a) SR/GR promotes (moral) relativism, (b) photons aren't legit even though I've just pointed that your argument was wrong (maybe that's a bit generous. To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, I can't even say it's wrong...) and (c) what is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 10:26, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==

It may be jumping the gun to put the finding from Friday as evidence against GR. The results have yet to be duplicated - duplicability is needed for a claim to have scientific merit - and have yet to be carefully peer reviewed. The results are significant at the 95% CI but that means there's a 1 in 20 chance they're actually inaccurate. Given how many measurements are made at the LHC some are going to be both statistically significant and incorrect. It may be more prudent to wait to see if it's a one off or measurement error. I propose waiting at least until other particle acceleration labs can attempt to duplicate the results to make any judgement; after all, that's what CERN is doing
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 00:18, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:I disagree. The opposition to the results from CERN -- which confirm prior results from another laboratory which were not as precise -- is unreasonable. It's not necessary to continue to pretend that Relativity is true when there is so much evidence against it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::CERN itself hasn't even confirmed the results. The data was published a lot quicker than data usually is because if it is accurate, then it changes the majority of physics laws discovered in the past century. The theory of relativity is not the only theory/law which involves the speed of light, electromagnetism does as well. Because of this, CERN wanted other scientists to try and find a flaw in the experiment quickly so that if there is a flaw, it is found quickly, and if there isn't, then scientists can begin determining what needs to change in order to accomodate this. Once the data has been properly analysed, without prematurely jumping to conclusions, then it would be fair to say that the neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light. But something to keep in mind: this is not the first experiment done with neutrinos, all of the prior ones having travelled slower than the speed of light. If you do an experiment 500 times, and each results has a 1/1000 chance of being inaccurate, there is a 40% chance that at least one result will be inaccurate. If they find an error in the experiment (such as a piece of the measuring equipment being broken, or poor calibration of equipment, or leftover neutrinos from previous experiments, or any other impacting error), then wouldn't it make conservapedia look silly for jumping to a conclusion too quickly? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The CERN experiment is not the only one suggesting faster-than-c travel. Moreover, there is no basis for doubting the news that something travels faster than c. Most of the objections in the media are based in an irrational clinging to Relativity. Hence the counterexample is being restored ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Looks like they've found the problem already: there was a flaw with the experiment.http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php This article basically says that they used GPS to measure the locations and the times. However, because the satellite used moves at a different speed to the Earth, relativity needs to be taken into account. Usually, relativity has no significant effect until speeds get nearish the speed of light. However, the neutrinos travelled 60 nanoseconds faster than light. Because it's nanoseconds, the speed difference of the Earth and the satellite is enough that relativity affects the experiment at the nanosecond level. Scientists have done calculations to determine how this changes the results (as because of the flaw, the results they got weren't actually accurate), and found that the neutrinos actually travelled for 64 seconds longer than they previously thought, making their speed very slightly less than the speed of light. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 18:02, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

: No, this explanation has not been accepted. There have been many other papers with other explanations. The jury is still out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:33, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Looking back, I made a mistake. I said general relativity's prediction was outside the measurement uncertainty for the fourth experiment (Anderson et al., 1992). I misread it. GR prediciton: 42.98 ±0.04, Observation: 43.13 ± 0.14. They actually do overlap. So general relativity is four for four. My bad. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:41, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: I took a look at the JPL link above but did not find any reference to the perihelion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::::: I'm pretty sure there's no reference to the perihelion because it's the raw data, without analysis. If the data was mapped to show Mercury's location, it would (presumably) show a perihelion. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There's a difference between relativity and quantum mechanics (which explains the above observation). If you only took high school physics--you have about two hundred years of catching up to do on the field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Ummmm...==

Physics has come a long way since Albert Einstein published his theories of relativity. Actually, there are quite a few hypothetical paradigms within modern physics that would allow a particle of sufficiently high energy to apparently travel faster than light. I'm not a physicist (as I've said on other pages, I'm a biologist), but I am peripherally familiar with a few of the better-supported ideas. I suggest you read up on M theory and string theory. At the risk of butchering the explanation (I am NOT a physicist), I will say that within the paradigm of M theory and string theory, observing high-energy particles moving slightly faster than light is not all that surprising. That said, the authors of the paper describing the "faster than light" neutrinos, admit up front that the numbers they got was probably the result of some sort of experimental error--the results need to be repeatable in order to be scientific. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

: Science can advance with one observation, and it's not necessary to wait until it is repeated before discussing and learning from it. How quickly (if ever) was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] repeated?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:: The Michelson-Morley experiment was first done in 1887. It was repeated by them and by others many times in the next few years. Illingworth and Kennedy came up with a variant that was more sensitive and could test for certain exotic explanations. They did that very soon after the initial experiment. Dayton Miller also did such experiments and continued to do them even after Einstein's work was completed. Miller acknowledged the results of the experiments but remained a committed opponent to special relativity. One of Miller's experiments did actually turn up some interesting results but his later experiments and other work failed to replicate it and it seems to have been a statistical anomaly. Others continued to duplicate versions of the MM experiment because the data from it can be used to test aspects of special relativity and other ideas. So duplicated forms have continued right up to the present day although generally using carefully tuned lasers as the light sources which give much more precision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Some experiments done following the MM experiment (not all listed, only some early ones and some recent ones): Morley-Miller 1902-1904 (published 1904), Miller 1921, Miller 1923-1924, Antonini et al 2005, Stanwix et al 2006, Eisele et al 2009, Herrmann et al 2009. Plus others between them, just listing some early ones and some recent ones. And it is usually necessary to wait until an experiment is repeated before accepting it to be accurate. A single observation, that can't be repeated, usually has an explanation within the current understanding of physics. For example, a network of ravines and gullies was observed in the 1870s on the surface of Mars, and there was wide speculation about their origin. An explanation suggested in the early 1900s wasn't proved until the 1960s, that the ravines and gullies were in actuality an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blowing across the surface in the strong winds. Another example of a 'discovery' that later turned out to be false was the existence of Vulcan, a planet between Mercury and the Sun. A single observation, unconfirmed by repetition, does not indicate a discovery. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::: Yes, the M-M experiment was repeated many times. It had to be done at different times of the year, at different altitudes, with different materials, etc. Eg, maybe the length contraction might have been different for wood and brass.
::: There are physicists who have suggested faster than light particles, but string theory and M theory are Lorentz invariant and useless on the issue. The string theorists would definitely be surprised by anything faster than light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: Claimed results from a single experiment have been proven wrong before (e.g, the claims of producing [[cold fusion]] in 1989). It makes sense to see if an experiment is replicated before throwing out an extremely well tested theory. It's very suspicious that we haven't seen neutrinos going faster than the speed of light before this. Experimenters are only human beings and could easily have made a mistake or forget to include something in their calculations. The claimed velocity is only a tiny fraction lager than c and might easily be explained by not taking into account some systematic error.
:::: If Mr. Schlafly's other 36 "counterexamples" are so strong then I don't see why he so badly needs the example of an unreplicated experiment whose data is still in the process of being analyzed. (When Einstein was asked about the book '100 Authors Against Einstein' he responded: "If I were wrong, it would only have taken one".) --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 11:27, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: If the experiment is disproved by subsequent experiments, then that particular counterexample can be removed. But the insistence on clinging to the [[theory of relativity]] when the available evidence is to the contrary is unjustified. Einstein's quote is inapplicable to this issue: the context of Einstein's quote refers to a government attempt to discredit his theory. His quote does apply to government efforts to deny scientific evidence today, such as the attempt by the [[NCI]] to deny the [[abortion]]-[[breast cancer]] link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Gee, the experiment counts as a counterexample even before the facts are in. What a surprise....
:::::: I'm not sure if the German government was behind '100 Authors Against Einstein', but even if it were it's completely irrelevant. The folly wasn't that it was done by the government; it was that if relativity was wrong one good argument would suffice. The inclusion of this unconfirmed experimental result just shows how this list of "counterexamples" values quantity over quality. Rather than making a few strong arguments it's a list of 37 random tidbits. '''You're expecting to overturn one of science's best theories with something that can fit inside a Twitter post?''' The reasoning for many points' inclusion are not well explained and counterarguments are not addressed (e.g, Hawking radiation is called a "[c]ontrived explanation" with no justification whatsoever). I suspect the "conciseness" of the points is just a reflection of its author's short attention span. I'll report to the Worldwide Relativity Cabal that we have nothing to fear from... oops. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:46, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Thank you MatthewQ! Oh, and Mr. Schlafly, the evidence does not support a link between abortion and breast cancer. You may find good sources on the topic [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733063/?tool=pmcentrez here], [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15835-2/fulltext here], and [http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814 here]. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 08:11, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::: As for redoing the M-M experiment, the [[LIGO]] experiment can be seen as a $400M modern M-M experiment. While the M-M failed to detect the motion of the Earth, LIGO has failed to detect motion in other galaxies. You may be interested in this new paper reporting on an NSF grant to teach high school students about LIGO detecting gravity waves. This is just to be ready in case LIGO ever succeeds in detecting anything, I guess. [http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3720] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 06:08, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== A few sections that should be removed... ==

12: For this point to be right, things need to have started VERY VERY small, which is impossible if Creationism is right. This creates an inconsistency within Conservapedia and should be removed.
26: The first part is wrong due to GPSs. In order to be more accurate, they take into account relativity, and hence relativity has produced something useful. The rest of it is repeated in 18. Hence, as everything in 26 is either wrong or repeated, it should be removed.
28: Relativity does not require everything with 0 mass to have 0 momentum. It actually takes into account that light, despite having 0 mass, has momentum.
29: This is actually wrong. The age of each twin is independent of the path travel, it is dependent only on the acceleration they experience. Therefore, this point is wrong.
Any comments or disagreements? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 22:02, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:On point 12, physicists themselves admit that relativity contradicts quantum mechanics shortly after the Big Bang. So even relativists would (or should) concede the validity of this counterexample.

:On point 26, GPS's were not developed as a result of relativity. This has been discussed at length on this site in the past. No relativists were involved in the engineering of GPS's; any differences in timing on the satellites relative to ground are more easily corrected by synchronization rather than theoretical predictions.

:Will review the other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

::I fully agree with all this. Some of the stuff in this page literally left my head hurting pretty badly from facepalming so hard.

::And, Schlafly, how does this make relativity wrong? Newtonian physics is wrong at quantum levels too. Should we add a "Counterexamples to Newtonian Mechanics" page and put something like that in there too? Of course not--it's an excellent approximation for things on the everyday scale. Same thing with GR.

::No, they were not developed because of relativity, but they were developed taking relativity into account. The people who built it didn't know the specifics, but they knew the corrections from relativity were there and they took them into account. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:53, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

::::I concur. Rather, arguing "counterexamples" is a fine way to demonstrate the weaknesses, inconsistencies, or future directions of inquiry regarding any scientific paradigm. However, it is a logical fallacy to say that "these are the problems with hypothesis A, therefore hypothesis B ''must'' be true". For a position to be effectively argued, one must present empirical evidence in support of an alternative hypothesis. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 00:56, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::A bigger logical fallacy occurs when someone insists or thinks that an alternative hypothesis B must exist before disproving a hypothesis A.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:14, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::Good point. However, when a hypothesis is not supported the scientific process usually then entails asking the question of why it was not supported, and then forming a new hypothesis that once again fits all of the available data. This is why scientific understanding of even the most hard and fast paradigms can change so dramatically from one generation to the next (or, occasionally, from one experiment to the next). The most exciting science gets done when a well-reasoned hypothesis is rejected--simply because it opens the door to so many new possibilities.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 13:01, 14 November 2011 (EST)

== A couple more problems ==

These went up after I posted the other section so I didn't know what to do. If you would prefer I post it there, then sorry. I'm new to wikis so I don't know proper etiquette and perhaps a missed something in the guidelines :)

Anyway, first thing, you state: "It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."

...Honestly, I am speechless about this. Again, this was taken down but now someone put it back up... You guys honestly think this statement is true? There is no connection between the two--the only thing they have in common is the name "relativity." What, you think that people's morals depend on their frame of reference and change by the relativistic <math> \gamma (\equiv 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2})</math> factor or something?! I am truly shocked by this...What connection is there? Where is the equation that predicts this?

Secondly: "Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light." Nope. Things can't travel at the speed of light, according to SR. Relativity explicitly states that things cannot go faster than light. If you drop this, then of course there are going to be going to be inconsistencies with SR...And that thread only talks about things going at the speed of light. What's the problem with solenoids travelling near c? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 16:52, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:Can someone please tell me what the link between moral relativism and GR/SR is...? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:04, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::Because <s>God</s> <s>psychotic rambling homophobic momma's boy</s> Andy Schlafly said so. You have to turn off your <s>indoctrinated</s> educated mind... --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:36, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

== At first glance ==

There are so many problems with this page I don't know where to start. Whomever wrote it is obviously clueless about science and its

methods. A few of the problems include:

1. Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.

The lack of experimental confirmation ''so far'' of gravity waves does NOT falsify the theory. Absence of evidence is not evidence of

absence.

3. Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of

Relativity.

Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed.

7. The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds relativity

Untrue. The EFEs contain a term (the cosmological constant) that fully accounts for accelerated expansion.

10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass

What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem. ?

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

AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster

than light.

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

See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not

"true and verifiable".

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

Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1.

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not

falsify a theory.

26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the

theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.

Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity.

27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction.

This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.

The priniciple of isotropy does not falisfy Relativity. The theory itself accounts for, and predicts, the difference in observed inertia.

28. 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.

And Relativity also predicts that photons have non-zero momentum. Relativistic systems can have non-zero momentum even with no

rest mass, due to ''mass-energy equivalence''. Relativity correctly predicts the momentum of a massless particle as p = h*f/c = h/λ.

31. The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows

down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to

be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity

Incorrect, as this only takes Special Relativity into account. This is a common fallacy. It is the acceleration required to return the twin

that accounts for the difference in clocks and is explained/predicted by General Relativity. One must take both SRT and GRT into

account.

32. Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right,

theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.

Fields do not constitute an "aether". The EM field exists (and was explained/predicted by Maxwell long before Eistein).

34 (a). In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens.

How is such an account "true and verifiable"?

34(b). This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.

Something that is "likely" does not falsify a scientific theory.

35. Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the

properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.

This is not an argument against applied mathematics, not against Relativity per se.

37. Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding.

This does not falsify the theory.

~~csmcmillion

:'''Reply''': by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack, you lost credibility from the get-go. A quick review of your points confirms it:

:1. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It is when billions are spent on many years of looking. Surely you wouldn't think a lost item is in your backpack if you spent time looking for it there and could not find it.

:3. "Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed." Experiments '''''are''''' confirmation in themselves.

:7. "the cosmological constant... fully accounts for accelerated expansion." Reliance on a cosmological constant has failed before.

:10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass. "What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem?" Oh please. None of these counterexamples is candidly addressed in physics departments because these counterexamples cast doubt on a theory preferred for political reasons. Anyone in a physics department who expresses doubt about the theory of relativity would be thereby ending his own academic career.

:13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement. "AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster than light." Relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance (which cannot seriously be disputed in QM) whether a type of information is transmitted or not.

:14. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51. "See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not 'true and verifiable.'" There are no [[Counterexamples to the Bible]], so this conflict is a serious one.

:15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching. "Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1." And see my answer to #1.

:18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics. "The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not falsify a theory." The failure of the theory to produce is strong evidence against its validity.

:26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. "Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity." A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I'll address your other responses as my time permits. For now:

"by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack"

Stating the obvious is not an ad hominem attack. I didn't say the author was an "idiot". Anyone who honestly thinks that because "devices" have not been engineered based upon a scientific theory somehow ''falsifies'' that theory ''is'' truly clueless (maybe ignorant would have been a better word) of science and the scientific method. A correct scientific theory must explain previous observations and correctly predict those to come. No where is there a requirement that it lead to engineered "devices".

14. "The action-at-a-distance by Jesus"

I should have added: The AAAD by Jesus is (usually) considered a miracle - a suspension of natural law. So I'm not clear on how the suspension of natural law could be considered a counterexample to a natural law to begin with.

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

I should have asked a simple question on this one: Have you ever asked an astronomer, cosmologist or theoretical physicist if s/he has had insights from Relativity? Please - find ''one'' that hasn't had deep insight as a result.

"A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--Andy Schlafly 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)"

So, adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible, which hindered technical progress for more than a thousand years, indicates that the Bible is almost certainly wrong. Thank you '''so much''' for clearing that up. ~~csmcmillion

:Take a look at [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]. When you post more substantive comments, then I'll respond to them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:37, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I agree that "relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance", but not that AAAD "cannot seriously be disputed in QM". There is no QM experiment that show AAAD. There are interpretations of QM that seem to imply AAAD, and respected physicists who believe in those interpretations and hence in AAAD. But QM does not imply AAAD as there are also relativistic interpretations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:27, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:QM experiments have shown that a pair of spinning, entangled photons can be separated a great distance, and that the mere observation of the spin of one of those photons immediately removes the uncertainty about the spin of the other photon a far distance away. All attempts to deny that [[action-at-a-distance]] reality have failed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:: Yes, the photon experiment is correct. Some people do interpret the observation of one photon as affecting the other photon. But there is no proof of that. You could prove it if the observation transmitted information, but no one can do that. Other interpretations do not require AAAD. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:47, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Andy: Why did you delete RSchlafly's most recent comment? RSchlafly: I believe you are correct. A little research on my part shows numerous refutations to the assertions made on this page, going back a couple of years:

http://skullsinthestars.com/2010/08/09/right-wing-refutations-of-relativity-really-really-wrong/

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/6253

I'm beginning to see why people are telling me not to waste my time trying to contribute to this site.
:All you're doing is making your own "assertions without clarification". We've had these arguments before, and these arguments were created by people who refuse to listen to what we say or refuse to read any of the sources we provide. And it's tiresome. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:44, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:User:csmcmillion, it's not a discussion when someone won't use his own words to explain his views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:49, 13 November 2011 (EST)

::And it's not a discussion when sysops repeatedly delete comments, as you just did. ~~csmcmillion
:::And what exactly did I delete? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Just wanted to add to this: When has <math>\Lambda</math> failed? It's a perfectly legitimate term in the EFE's, as csmcmillion has stated. The righthand side of it is (in <math>G=c=1</math> units) is <math>8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta }</math>. You need something on the left which is a measure of curvature, i.e., the Einstein tensor <math>G^{\alpha \beta}</math>. Why the Einstein tensor? Why not the Ricci tensor? Why not the scalar curvature times the metric? The reason is that the stress-energy tensor (T) has to have zero divergence: <math>\nabla_{\beta} T^{\alpha \beta} = 0 </math>. The Einstein tensor has zero divergence as well. But, we also have <math> \nabla_{\gamma} g^{\alpha \beta} = 0</math>. So we can safely add in <math>\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta}</math> to the left hand side of the EFE without violating local conservation of energy-momentum. Using this gives <math>G^{\alpha \beta}+\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta} = 8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta}. </math> [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:46, 15 November 2011 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The "The observed lack of curvature in overall space" is not an "unobserved" phenomenon. Accordingly, it has been reverted along with the others. Looking for something that should be there under a theory, but not finding it there as predicted, is a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:50, 30 November 2011 (EST)

:[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], sorry, yes, I was being a bit overzealous on that one. However, I think the principle holds - many of the concepts listed are not counterexamples. Starting with number one: relativity predicts gravity waves and predicts that they will be extremely difficult to detect. Now I hear you say that's a pretty lousy kind of prediction - and you're right - but it still doesn't make it a counterexample. The same goes for the entry on gravitons (additionally, they're a prediction of quantum theory, not relativity, but that's for another phase of editing).
:It may be that further categorizing is necessary. For example, issues like the Twin Paradox and the Ehrenfest Paradox are not strictly unobserved phenomena either. Item 37, failure to solve the equations, is a problem for mathematics, not necessarily for relativity.
:Perhaps a simpler solution would be to rename the whole article, perhaps to 'Counterarguments to Relativity'. That way the article doesn't look silly by listing things that clearly aren't counterexamples, and also is open to inclusion of a broader range of criticisms of the theory. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:50, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:: I agree with QPR, as upon thinking about it, 'counterexamples' does not accurately describe the things on the list. And looking for something predicted and not finding it is only a counterexample/counterargument if it is predicted to be in a specific place, and when looking there, it isn't found. Hence, not finding gravity waves despite looking for them doesn't mean they don't exist. Many things were thought to be myths or non-existent until they were found, including giraffes. But I also disagree with QPR in that categorizing the list is unnecessary, and would result in needless discussions about where certain points belong, rather than more productive discussions. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::: I don't think that counterexamples is the best word either. My suggestion would be to leave the title as is, but to split the list into ''paradoxes'' and ''anomalies''. They maybe people would have a better idea what to expect from each item. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:43, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Response to the above: the list is of "counterexamples". These are examples that are counter to the theory. Other terms, like "paradox" or "anomaly", capture neither the concept of "example" nor of it being "counter" to the theory. The term "paradox" arises in philosophy, but this isn't philosophy. Relativity is a theory that pretends to be correct in every case, but it isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:24, 3 December 2011 (EST)

== Deleted example to releativity ==

Hello, I added a counter example to relativity that was removed, despite it being valid. My counter example was that the special theory of relativity predicts that mass is a form of energy and they are interchangeable. But if this were true the huge amount of energy stored in common matter would have been utilised by now in power stations and weaponry.

The problem is, it's been over 100 years since this theory was published and not one power station that utilises the interchange of mass and energy predicted by relativity has actually been built.

However, this counter example was removed because a member claimed that these do exist. Now this leaves us with a dichotomy. Do we...
A) Admit that these power stations exist (which they don't) and therefore acknowledge the special theory of relativity is accurate and true, or
B) We keep the counter example included that no power station that utilises special relativity exists, and therefore it is a sign that relativity is false.

I think we should vote for B on this issue. It would be like inventing the motor engine, but not building cars! --[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 12:36, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:Actually these power stations DO exist and have done for decades; they're called "nuclear reactors" and they generate heat by turning mass into energy. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 12:45, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::If these stations do exist, then how come Albert Einstein admitted of the inability to apply the predictions of his OWN theory? I quote "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable".

::Next you'll be telling me that we can do the physically impossible and generate electricity by fusing atoms to form heavier atoms too.

::Let's face it, special relativity has no practical application in providing energy. If it were, mass and energy would be seen interchanging all the time. F will ''always'' equal MA, mass can neither increase or decrease by being converted into energy; observations of non-zero mass particles accelerated to ''exactly'' the speed of light prove this.--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:01, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::The stations exist, hundreds of them, all over the world. Some of them even fit into ships and submarines. Nuclear fission reactors produce power by converting rest mass into electromagnetic and kinetic energy, exactly in accordance with e=mc2. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:06, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::::''I'' don't believe that. Do you ''know'' they exist for sure? Have you ''really'' ever been to one? ''I'm'' sure they employ some kind of ''a'' clever trick. Otherwise Newton, unchallenged as the most intelligent ''scientist'' of all time, would see his second law of motion proven wrong. The second law of motion is a law that is known to always hold true by centuries of accurate tests. These power stations can not exist, the laws of physics don't allow it!--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:18, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::::I don't care what you believe. Yes they exist, and yes I've been to one. If you tell me where you live I'll give you directions to the nearest one, and you can either visit or call their press officer. Either way they'll be happy to explain how they turn mass into energy and generate power with the heat that's released. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:23, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::::::These aren't my beliefs, these are scientific facts. Newton's laws have been established for centuries and have never been challenged. Yet if they are true, then nuclear power stations can't exist because that would require the M of F=MA to be a variable quantity directly related to A.

::::::As I put more energy into the acceleration of an object, the mass does not increase, it cannot increase. Why? Because mass and energy cannot be interchanged. If this were true, then no non-zero mass particle could ever be accelerated to the speed of light. Non-zero mass particles are accelerated to the speed of light every day at particle colliders worldwide.

::::::If what you say is true, then we would have to get rid of this entire page because it invalidates every counter example.--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:43, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::::::You're not listening, are you? Conversion of mass into energy, in accordance with e=mc2 is how nuclear reactors work. Your counterexample was removed because it's INVALID. What part of this don't you understand? Newton's Second Law is irrelevant to the point you're trying to make, by the way.

:::::::"Yet if they are true, then nuclear power stations can't exist" Epic fail. Nuclear power stations DO exist. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:46, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T18:45:51Z

ClearView2011: /* Deleted example to releativity */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

==Path Independence and Photons==
Wait, so time is some sort of vector field such that when you integrate it you get time? And that vector field is conservative? I've never heard of such a thing... 
As well, you state: "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." Yes, if you plug in the formula for non-relativistic, Newtonian momentum, you get zero, but SR gives you the equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2. Plug m=0 in. You get E=pc. So, the momentum is nonzero. That's a very well-known result... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 12:06, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:So should I take the "counter example" down...? Not to be rude but can someone at least respond to me? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
::Take it down, then if someone reverts (which is likely) it'll provoke a short discussion that probably won't reach a consensus. Regardless, you're unlikely to succeed in keeping it changed. I'm not trying to discourage, go ahead and try changing it, I'm just letting you know what to expect. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:33, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:::These are interesting points worthy of further discussion. As to the first point, however, merely asking two questions is not persuasive to me.

:::As to the second point, I find the argument somewhat circular. Is the energy equation cited verified by any experiment, or is it merely definitional? If merely definitional, then it does not provide a way for calculating actual momentum.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Well answer them. The point I'm making is that there is no vector field such that when integrates it, one gets time. I had never heard of it until then. I am asking you to enlighten me.
 
::::And as a matter of fact there is! The equation is E=hf where E is the energy of the photon, f is the frequency of the photon, and h is just a proportionality constant (known as Planck's constant). And it has been experimentally verified. It explains the spectrum from blackbody radiation and it explains the photoelectric effect. And if I recall correctly, your camera uses the photoelectric effect. These things are quite well known... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:55, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::Oh, and I forgot to mention--the Compton effect is explained by photons. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::Please address my more substantive point: has your equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2 been experimentally verified, or is it simply definitional?

:::::::First of all, will you please answer my question...? What is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? And oops. Misread your question. And no, it's not "definitional," it's from the relativistic expressions of energy and momentum... (And yes, those have been experimentally verified--if I recall correctly, using those equations, you can predict what can happen (i.e. speeds) when elementary particles are created. But I'm not particle physicist) Once you have those, just do a little algebra and you get that equation. And I hope you're not going to deny basic algebra....
 
:::::::Again, all this is well known.... Out of curiosity have you ever actually studied relativity or this photon stuff? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:39, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I've removed the counter-example of photons...I think I've provided a satisfactory explanation to Schlafly (and he's not responding for some reason...) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:50, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Schlafly, I saw you re-added the "counter-example." Will you please respond to me? Are you seriously just going to keep it there and refuse to discuss this at all? Wow and you claim that we're not open-minded.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:45, 9 November 2011 (EST)

::::::::::Andy, there is no "counter-example of photons." Photons are not mentioned in the list. But are you referring to this counterexample:

:::::::::::28.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.

::::::::::Let's be clear about what the dispute is first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 11 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::::::Yeah, that's the one. Sorry. Poorly-worded. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:29, 14 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::::::Will someone please tell me why (a) SR/GR promotes (moral) relativism, (b) photons aren't legit even though I've just pointed that your argument was wrong (maybe that's a bit generous. To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, I can't even say it's wrong...) and (c) what is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 10:26, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==

It may be jumping the gun to put the finding from Friday as evidence against GR. The results have yet to be duplicated - duplicability is needed for a claim to have scientific merit - and have yet to be carefully peer reviewed. The results are significant at the 95% CI but that means there's a 1 in 20 chance they're actually inaccurate. Given how many measurements are made at the LHC some are going to be both statistically significant and incorrect. It may be more prudent to wait to see if it's a one off or measurement error. I propose waiting at least until other particle acceleration labs can attempt to duplicate the results to make any judgement; after all, that's what CERN is doing
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 00:18, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:I disagree. The opposition to the results from CERN -- which confirm prior results from another laboratory which were not as precise -- is unreasonable. It's not necessary to continue to pretend that Relativity is true when there is so much evidence against it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::CERN itself hasn't even confirmed the results. The data was published a lot quicker than data usually is because if it is accurate, then it changes the majority of physics laws discovered in the past century. The theory of relativity is not the only theory/law which involves the speed of light, electromagnetism does as well. Because of this, CERN wanted other scientists to try and find a flaw in the experiment quickly so that if there is a flaw, it is found quickly, and if there isn't, then scientists can begin determining what needs to change in order to accomodate this. Once the data has been properly analysed, without prematurely jumping to conclusions, then it would be fair to say that the neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light. But something to keep in mind: this is not the first experiment done with neutrinos, all of the prior ones having travelled slower than the speed of light. If you do an experiment 500 times, and each results has a 1/1000 chance of being inaccurate, there is a 40% chance that at least one result will be inaccurate. If they find an error in the experiment (such as a piece of the measuring equipment being broken, or poor calibration of equipment, or leftover neutrinos from previous experiments, or any other impacting error), then wouldn't it make conservapedia look silly for jumping to a conclusion too quickly? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The CERN experiment is not the only one suggesting faster-than-c travel. Moreover, there is no basis for doubting the news that something travels faster than c. Most of the objections in the media are based in an irrational clinging to Relativity. Hence the counterexample is being restored ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Looks like they've found the problem already: there was a flaw with the experiment.http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php This article basically says that they used GPS to measure the locations and the times. However, because the satellite used moves at a different speed to the Earth, relativity needs to be taken into account. Usually, relativity has no significant effect until speeds get nearish the speed of light. However, the neutrinos travelled 60 nanoseconds faster than light. Because it's nanoseconds, the speed difference of the Earth and the satellite is enough that relativity affects the experiment at the nanosecond level. Scientists have done calculations to determine how this changes the results (as because of the flaw, the results they got weren't actually accurate), and found that the neutrinos actually travelled for 64 seconds longer than they previously thought, making their speed very slightly less than the speed of light. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 18:02, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

: No, this explanation has not been accepted. There have been many other papers with other explanations. The jury is still out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:33, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Looking back, I made a mistake. I said general relativity's prediction was outside the measurement uncertainty for the fourth experiment (Anderson et al., 1992). I misread it. GR prediciton: 42.98 ±0.04, Observation: 43.13 ± 0.14. They actually do overlap. So general relativity is four for four. My bad. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:41, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: I took a look at the JPL link above but did not find any reference to the perihelion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::::: I'm pretty sure there's no reference to the perihelion because it's the raw data, without analysis. If the data was mapped to show Mercury's location, it would (presumably) show a perihelion. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There's a difference between relativity and quantum mechanics (which explains the above observation). If you only took high school physics--you have about two hundred years of catching up to do on the field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Ummmm...==

Physics has come a long way since Albert Einstein published his theories of relativity. Actually, there are quite a few hypothetical paradigms within modern physics that would allow a particle of sufficiently high energy to apparently travel faster than light. I'm not a physicist (as I've said on other pages, I'm a biologist), but I am peripherally familiar with a few of the better-supported ideas. I suggest you read up on M theory and string theory. At the risk of butchering the explanation (I am NOT a physicist), I will say that within the paradigm of M theory and string theory, observing high-energy particles moving slightly faster than light is not all that surprising. That said, the authors of the paper describing the "faster than light" neutrinos, admit up front that the numbers they got was probably the result of some sort of experimental error--the results need to be repeatable in order to be scientific. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

: Science can advance with one observation, and it's not necessary to wait until it is repeated before discussing and learning from it. How quickly (if ever) was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] repeated?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:: The Michelson-Morley experiment was first done in 1887. It was repeated by them and by others many times in the next few years. Illingworth and Kennedy came up with a variant that was more sensitive and could test for certain exotic explanations. They did that very soon after the initial experiment. Dayton Miller also did such experiments and continued to do them even after Einstein's work was completed. Miller acknowledged the results of the experiments but remained a committed opponent to special relativity. One of Miller's experiments did actually turn up some interesting results but his later experiments and other work failed to replicate it and it seems to have been a statistical anomaly. Others continued to duplicate versions of the MM experiment because the data from it can be used to test aspects of special relativity and other ideas. So duplicated forms have continued right up to the present day although generally using carefully tuned lasers as the light sources which give much more precision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Some experiments done following the MM experiment (not all listed, only some early ones and some recent ones): Morley-Miller 1902-1904 (published 1904), Miller 1921, Miller 1923-1924, Antonini et al 2005, Stanwix et al 2006, Eisele et al 2009, Herrmann et al 2009. Plus others between them, just listing some early ones and some recent ones. And it is usually necessary to wait until an experiment is repeated before accepting it to be accurate. A single observation, that can't be repeated, usually has an explanation within the current understanding of physics. For example, a network of ravines and gullies was observed in the 1870s on the surface of Mars, and there was wide speculation about their origin. An explanation suggested in the early 1900s wasn't proved until the 1960s, that the ravines and gullies were in actuality an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blowing across the surface in the strong winds. Another example of a 'discovery' that later turned out to be false was the existence of Vulcan, a planet between Mercury and the Sun. A single observation, unconfirmed by repetition, does not indicate a discovery. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::: Yes, the M-M experiment was repeated many times. It had to be done at different times of the year, at different altitudes, with different materials, etc. Eg, maybe the length contraction might have been different for wood and brass.
::: There are physicists who have suggested faster than light particles, but string theory and M theory are Lorentz invariant and useless on the issue. The string theorists would definitely be surprised by anything faster than light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: Claimed results from a single experiment have been proven wrong before (e.g, the claims of producing [[cold fusion]] in 1989). It makes sense to see if an experiment is replicated before throwing out an extremely well tested theory. It's very suspicious that we haven't seen neutrinos going faster than the speed of light before this. Experimenters are only human beings and could easily have made a mistake or forget to include something in their calculations. The claimed velocity is only a tiny fraction lager than c and might easily be explained by not taking into account some systematic error.
:::: If Mr. Schlafly's other 36 "counterexamples" are so strong then I don't see why he so badly needs the example of an unreplicated experiment whose data is still in the process of being analyzed. (When Einstein was asked about the book '100 Authors Against Einstein' he responded: "If I were wrong, it would only have taken one".) --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 11:27, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: If the experiment is disproved by subsequent experiments, then that particular counterexample can be removed. But the insistence on clinging to the [[theory of relativity]] when the available evidence is to the contrary is unjustified. Einstein's quote is inapplicable to this issue: the context of Einstein's quote refers to a government attempt to discredit his theory. His quote does apply to government efforts to deny scientific evidence today, such as the attempt by the [[NCI]] to deny the [[abortion]]-[[breast cancer]] link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Gee, the experiment counts as a counterexample even before the facts are in. What a surprise....
:::::: I'm not sure if the German government was behind '100 Authors Against Einstein', but even if it were it's completely irrelevant. The folly wasn't that it was done by the government; it was that if relativity was wrong one good argument would suffice. The inclusion of this unconfirmed experimental result just shows how this list of "counterexamples" values quantity over quality. Rather than making a few strong arguments it's a list of 37 random tidbits. '''You're expecting to overturn one of science's best theories with something that can fit inside a Twitter post?''' The reasoning for many points' inclusion are not well explained and counterarguments are not addressed (e.g, Hawking radiation is called a "[c]ontrived explanation" with no justification whatsoever). I suspect the "conciseness" of the points is just a reflection of its author's short attention span. I'll report to the Worldwide Relativity Cabal that we have nothing to fear from... oops. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:46, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Thank you MatthewQ! Oh, and Mr. Schlafly, the evidence does not support a link between abortion and breast cancer. You may find good sources on the topic [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733063/?tool=pmcentrez here], [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15835-2/fulltext here], and [http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814 here]. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 08:11, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::: As for redoing the M-M experiment, the [[LIGO]] experiment can be seen as a $400M modern M-M experiment. While the M-M failed to detect the motion of the Earth, LIGO has failed to detect motion in other galaxies. You may be interested in this new paper reporting on an NSF grant to teach high school students about LIGO detecting gravity waves. This is just to be ready in case LIGO ever succeeds in detecting anything, I guess. [http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3720] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 06:08, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== A few sections that should be removed... ==

12: For this point to be right, things need to have started VERY VERY small, which is impossible if Creationism is right. This creates an inconsistency within Conservapedia and should be removed.
26: The first part is wrong due to GPSs. In order to be more accurate, they take into account relativity, and hence relativity has produced something useful. The rest of it is repeated in 18. Hence, as everything in 26 is either wrong or repeated, it should be removed.
28: Relativity does not require everything with 0 mass to have 0 momentum. It actually takes into account that light, despite having 0 mass, has momentum.
29: This is actually wrong. The age of each twin is independent of the path travel, it is dependent only on the acceleration they experience. Therefore, this point is wrong.
Any comments or disagreements? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 22:02, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:On point 12, physicists themselves admit that relativity contradicts quantum mechanics shortly after the Big Bang. So even relativists would (or should) concede the validity of this counterexample.

:On point 26, GPS's were not developed as a result of relativity. This has been discussed at length on this site in the past. No relativists were involved in the engineering of GPS's; any differences in timing on the satellites relative to ground are more easily corrected by synchronization rather than theoretical predictions.

:Will review the other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

::I fully agree with all this. Some of the stuff in this page literally left my head hurting pretty badly from facepalming so hard.

::And, Schlafly, how does this make relativity wrong? Newtonian physics is wrong at quantum levels too. Should we add a "Counterexamples to Newtonian Mechanics" page and put something like that in there too? Of course not--it's an excellent approximation for things on the everyday scale. Same thing with GR.

::No, they were not developed because of relativity, but they were developed taking relativity into account. The people who built it didn't know the specifics, but they knew the corrections from relativity were there and they took them into account. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:53, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

::::I concur. Rather, arguing "counterexamples" is a fine way to demonstrate the weaknesses, inconsistencies, or future directions of inquiry regarding any scientific paradigm. However, it is a logical fallacy to say that "these are the problems with hypothesis A, therefore hypothesis B ''must'' be true". For a position to be effectively argued, one must present empirical evidence in support of an alternative hypothesis. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 00:56, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::A bigger logical fallacy occurs when someone insists or thinks that an alternative hypothesis B must exist before disproving a hypothesis A.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:14, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::Good point. However, when a hypothesis is not supported the scientific process usually then entails asking the question of why it was not supported, and then forming a new hypothesis that once again fits all of the available data. This is why scientific understanding of even the most hard and fast paradigms can change so dramatically from one generation to the next (or, occasionally, from one experiment to the next). The most exciting science gets done when a well-reasoned hypothesis is rejected--simply because it opens the door to so many new possibilities.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 13:01, 14 November 2011 (EST)

== A couple more problems ==

These went up after I posted the other section so I didn't know what to do. If you would prefer I post it there, then sorry. I'm new to wikis so I don't know proper etiquette and perhaps a missed something in the guidelines :)

Anyway, first thing, you state: "It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."

...Honestly, I am speechless about this. Again, this was taken down but now someone put it back up... You guys honestly think this statement is true? There is no connection between the two--the only thing they have in common is the name "relativity." What, you think that people's morals depend on their frame of reference and change by the relativistic <math> \gamma (\equiv 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2})</math> factor or something?! I am truly shocked by this...What connection is there? Where is the equation that predicts this?

Secondly: "Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light." Nope. Things can't travel at the speed of light, according to SR. Relativity explicitly states that things cannot go faster than light. If you drop this, then of course there are going to be going to be inconsistencies with SR...And that thread only talks about things going at the speed of light. What's the problem with solenoids travelling near c? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 16:52, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:Can someone please tell me what the link between moral relativism and GR/SR is...? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:04, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::Because <s>God</s> <s>psychotic rambling homophobic momma's boy</s> Andy Schlafly said so. You have to turn off your <s>indoctrinated</s> educated mind... --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:36, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

== At first glance ==

There are so many problems with this page I don't know where to start. Whomever wrote it is obviously clueless about science and its

methods. A few of the problems include:

1. Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.

The lack of experimental confirmation ''so far'' of gravity waves does NOT falsify the theory. Absence of evidence is not evidence of

absence.

3. Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of

Relativity.

Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed.

7. The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds relativity

Untrue. The EFEs contain a term (the cosmological constant) that fully accounts for accelerated expansion.

10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass

What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem. ?

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

AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster

than light.

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

See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not

"true and verifiable".

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

Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1.

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not

falsify a theory.

26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the

theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.

Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity.

27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction.

This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.

The priniciple of isotropy does not falisfy Relativity. The theory itself accounts for, and predicts, the difference in observed inertia.

28. 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.

And Relativity also predicts that photons have non-zero momentum. Relativistic systems can have non-zero momentum even with no

rest mass, due to ''mass-energy equivalence''. Relativity correctly predicts the momentum of a massless particle as p = h*f/c = h/λ.

31. The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows

down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to

be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity

Incorrect, as this only takes Special Relativity into account. This is a common fallacy. It is the acceleration required to return the twin

that accounts for the difference in clocks and is explained/predicted by General Relativity. One must take both SRT and GRT into

account.

32. Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right,

theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.

Fields do not constitute an "aether". The EM field exists (and was explained/predicted by Maxwell long before Eistein).

34 (a). In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens.

How is such an account "true and verifiable"?

34(b). This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.

Something that is "likely" does not falsify a scientific theory.

35. Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the

properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.

This is not an argument against applied mathematics, not against Relativity per se.

37. Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding.

This does not falsify the theory.

~~csmcmillion

:'''Reply''': by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack, you lost credibility from the get-go. A quick review of your points confirms it:

:1. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It is when billions are spent on many years of looking. Surely you wouldn't think a lost item is in your backpack if you spent time looking for it there and could not find it.

:3. "Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed." Experiments '''''are''''' confirmation in themselves.

:7. "the cosmological constant... fully accounts for accelerated expansion." Reliance on a cosmological constant has failed before.

:10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass. "What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem?" Oh please. None of these counterexamples is candidly addressed in physics departments because these counterexamples cast doubt on a theory preferred for political reasons. Anyone in a physics department who expresses doubt about the theory of relativity would be thereby ending his own academic career.

:13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement. "AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster than light." Relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance (which cannot seriously be disputed in QM) whether a type of information is transmitted or not.

:14. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51. "See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not 'true and verifiable.'" There are no [[Counterexamples to the Bible]], so this conflict is a serious one.

:15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching. "Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1." And see my answer to #1.

:18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics. "The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not falsify a theory." The failure of the theory to produce is strong evidence against its validity.

:26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. "Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity." A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I'll address your other responses as my time permits. For now:

"by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack"

Stating the obvious is not an ad hominem attack. I didn't say the author was an "idiot". Anyone who honestly thinks that because "devices" have not been engineered based upon a scientific theory somehow ''falsifies'' that theory ''is'' truly clueless (maybe ignorant would have been a better word) of science and the scientific method. A correct scientific theory must explain previous observations and correctly predict those to come. No where is there a requirement that it lead to engineered "devices".

14. "The action-at-a-distance by Jesus"

I should have added: The AAAD by Jesus is (usually) considered a miracle - a suspension of natural law. So I'm not clear on how the suspension of natural law could be considered a counterexample to a natural law to begin with.

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

I should have asked a simple question on this one: Have you ever asked an astronomer, cosmologist or theoretical physicist if s/he has had insights from Relativity? Please - find ''one'' that hasn't had deep insight as a result.

"A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--Andy Schlafly 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)"

So, adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible, which hindered technical progress for more than a thousand years, indicates that the Bible is almost certainly wrong. Thank you '''so much''' for clearing that up. ~~csmcmillion

:Take a look at [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]. When you post more substantive comments, then I'll respond to them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:37, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I agree that "relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance", but not that AAAD "cannot seriously be disputed in QM". There is no QM experiment that show AAAD. There are interpretations of QM that seem to imply AAAD, and respected physicists who believe in those interpretations and hence in AAAD. But QM does not imply AAAD as there are also relativistic interpretations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:27, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:QM experiments have shown that a pair of spinning, entangled photons can be separated a great distance, and that the mere observation of the spin of one of those photons immediately removes the uncertainty about the spin of the other photon a far distance away. All attempts to deny that [[action-at-a-distance]] reality have failed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:: Yes, the photon experiment is correct. Some people do interpret the observation of one photon as affecting the other photon. But there is no proof of that. You could prove it if the observation transmitted information, but no one can do that. Other interpretations do not require AAAD. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:47, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Andy: Why did you delete RSchlafly's most recent comment? RSchlafly: I believe you are correct. A little research on my part shows numerous refutations to the assertions made on this page, going back a couple of years:

http://skullsinthestars.com/2010/08/09/right-wing-refutations-of-relativity-really-really-wrong/

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/6253

I'm beginning to see why people are telling me not to waste my time trying to contribute to this site.
:All you're doing is making your own "assertions without clarification". We've had these arguments before, and these arguments were created by people who refuse to listen to what we say or refuse to read any of the sources we provide. And it's tiresome. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:44, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:User:csmcmillion, it's not a discussion when someone won't use his own words to explain his views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:49, 13 November 2011 (EST)

::And it's not a discussion when sysops repeatedly delete comments, as you just did. ~~csmcmillion
:::And what exactly did I delete? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Just wanted to add to this: When has <math>\Lambda</math> failed? It's a perfectly legitimate term in the EFE's, as csmcmillion has stated. The righthand side of it is (in <math>G=c=1</math> units) is <math>8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta }</math>. You need something on the left which is a measure of curvature, i.e., the Einstein tensor <math>G^{\alpha \beta}</math>. Why the Einstein tensor? Why not the Ricci tensor? Why not the scalar curvature times the metric? The reason is that the stress-energy tensor (T) has to have zero divergence: <math>\nabla_{\beta} T^{\alpha \beta} = 0 </math>. The Einstein tensor has zero divergence as well. But, we also have <math> \nabla_{\gamma} g^{\alpha \beta} = 0</math>. So we can safely add in <math>\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta}</math> to the left hand side of the EFE without violating local conservation of energy-momentum. Using this gives <math>G^{\alpha \beta}+\Lambda g^{\alpha \beta} = 8 \pi T^{\alpha \beta}. </math> [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:46, 15 November 2011 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The "The observed lack of curvature in overall space" is not an "unobserved" phenomenon. Accordingly, it has been reverted along with the others. Looking for something that should be there under a theory, but not finding it there as predicted, is a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:50, 30 November 2011 (EST)

:[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], sorry, yes, I was being a bit overzealous on that one. However, I think the principle holds - many of the concepts listed are not counterexamples. Starting with number one: relativity predicts gravity waves and predicts that they will be extremely difficult to detect. Now I hear you say that's a pretty lousy kind of prediction - and you're right - but it still doesn't make it a counterexample. The same goes for the entry on gravitons (additionally, they're a prediction of quantum theory, not relativity, but that's for another phase of editing).
:It may be that further categorizing is necessary. For example, issues like the Twin Paradox and the Ehrenfest Paradox are not strictly unobserved phenomena either. Item 37, failure to solve the equations, is a problem for mathematics, not necessarily for relativity.
:Perhaps a simpler solution would be to rename the whole article, perhaps to 'Counterarguments to Relativity'. That way the article doesn't look silly by listing things that clearly aren't counterexamples, and also is open to inclusion of a broader range of criticisms of the theory. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:50, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:: I agree with QPR, as upon thinking about it, 'counterexamples' does not accurately describe the things on the list. And looking for something predicted and not finding it is only a counterexample/counterargument if it is predicted to be in a specific place, and when looking there, it isn't found. Hence, not finding gravity waves despite looking for them doesn't mean they don't exist. Many things were thought to be myths or non-existent until they were found, including giraffes. But I also disagree with QPR in that categorizing the list is unnecessary, and would result in needless discussions about where certain points belong, rather than more productive discussions. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:56, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::: I don't think that counterexamples is the best word either. My suggestion would be to leave the title as is, but to split the list into ''paradoxes'' and ''anomalies''. They maybe people would have a better idea what to expect from each item. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:43, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Response to the above: the list is of "counterexamples". These are examples that are counter to the theory. Other terms, like "paradox" or "anomaly", capture neither the concept of "example" nor of it being "counter" to the theory. The term "paradox" arises in philosophy, but this isn't philosophy. Relativity is a theory that pretends to be correct in every case, but it isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:24, 3 December 2011 (EST)

== Deleted example to releativity ==

Hello, I added a counter example to relativity that was removed, despite it being valid. My counter example was that the special theory of relativity predicts that mass is a form of energy and they are interchangeable. But if this were true the huge amount of energy stored in common matter would have been utilised by now in power stations and weaponry.

The problem is, it's been over 100 years since this theory was published and not one power station that utilises the interchange of mass and energy predicted by relativity has actually been built.

However, this counter example was removed because a member claimed that these do exist. Now this leaves us with a dichotomy. Do we...
A) Admit that these power stations exist (which they don't) and therefore acknowledge the special theory of relativity is accurate and true, or
B) We keep the counter example included that no power station that utilises special relativity exists, and therefore it is a sign that relativity is false.

I think we should vote for B on this issue. It would be like inventing the motor engine, but not building cars! --[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 12:36, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:Actually these power stations DO exist and have done for decades; they're called "nuclear reactors" and they generate heat by turning mass into energy. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 12:45, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::If these stations do exist, then how come Albert Einstein admitted of the inability to apply the predictions of his OWN theory? I quote "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable".

::Next you'll be telling me that we can do the physically impossible and generate electricity by fusing atoms to form heavier atoms too.

::Let's face it, special relativity has no practical application in providing energy. If it were, mass and energy would be seen interchanging all the time. F will ''always'' equal MA, mass can neither increase or decrease by being converted into energy; observations of non-zero mass particles accelerated to ''exactly'' the speed of light prove this.--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:01, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::The stations exist, hundreds of them, all over the world. Some of them even fit into ships and submarines. Nuclear fission reactors produce power by converting rest mass into electromagnetic and kinetic energy, exactly in accordance with e=mc2. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:06, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::::''I'' don't believe that. Do you ''know'' they exist for sure? Have you ''really'' ever been to one? ''I'm'' sure they employ some kind of ''a'' clever trick. Otherwise Newton, unchallenged as the most intelligent ''scientist'' of all time, would see his second law of motion proven wrong. The second law of motion is a law that is known to always hold true by centuries of accurate tests. These power stations can not exist, the laws of physics don't allow it!--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:18, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::::I don't care what you believe. Yes they exist, and yes I've been to one. If you tell me where you live I'll give you directions to the nearest one, and you can either visit or call their press officer. Either way they'll be happy to explain how they turn mass into energy and generate power with the heat that's released. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:23, 3 December 2011 (EST)

::::::These aren't my beliefs, these are scientific facts. Newton's laws have been established for centuries and have never been challenged. Yet if they are true, then nuclear power stations can't exist because that would require the M of F=MA to be a variable quantity directly related to A.

::::::As I put more energy into the acceleration of an object, the mass does not increase, it cannot increase. Why? Because mass and energy cannot be interchanged. If this were true, then no non-zero mass particle could ever be accelerated to the speed of light. Non-zero mass particles are accelerated to the speed of light every day at particle colliders worldwide.

::::::If what you say is true, then we would have to get rid of this entire page because it invalidates every counter example.--[[User:GMilhouse|GMilhouse]] 13:43, 3 December 2011 (EST)

:::::::You're not listening, are you? Conversion of mass into energy, in accordance with e=mc2 is how nuclear reactors work. Your counterexample was removed because it's INVALID. What part of this don't you understand? Newton's Second Law is irrelevant to the point you're trying to make, by the way.

:::::::"Yet if they are true, then nuclear power stations can't exist" Epic fail. Nuclear power stations DO exist. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:45, 3 December 2011 (EST)

User talk:ClearView2011

2011-12-03T18:39:00Z

ClearView2011:

I'll look after my own talk page, thanks. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:39, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Mohammed Amin Al-Husseini

2011-12-03T18:27:23Z

ClearView2011: He didn't train them, what with him not being a Waffen-SS instructor and other minor details like that. He did visit them though.

'''Haj Mohammed Amin Al-Husseini''' (1895-1973) was the Grand [[Mufti]] of [[Jerusalem]] during the early 20th century and during [[World War II]].

An outspoken [[anti-Semitism|anti-Semite]], he had a very close friendship with [[Adolf Hitler]] and visited muslim [[SS]] units, such as the Handschar Brigade. Al-Husseini also supported Hitler's deadly "Final Solution." In 1945, Al-Husseini was captured with many Nazis at Nuremberg and was labeled a war criminal, buut he escaped and fled to [[Egypt]], where he lived until his death in 1973.

[[Yasser Arafat]] was a distant cousin of his.

[[Category: Anti-Semitism]]
[[Category: Muslims]]
[[Category: Nazis]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T18:23:53Z

ClearView2011: /* Deleted example to releativity */

Danzig

2011-12-03T18:21:19Z

ClearView2011:

'''Danzig''' is the German name for the port known as Gdańsk in Polish. Located on the [[Baltic Sea]], it formed part of [[Prussia]] and [[Germany]] until 1919. As a result of the [[Treaty of Versailles]] Danzig, although having a majority German population, was taken from Germany and created a 'Free City' in order to provide the newly-independent [[Poland]] with a sea port not controlled by Germany. In the late 1930s Danzig developed a strong [[Nazi]] movement, and control of the city, and of the "[[Polish Corridor]]" (Polish land separating Danzig and [[East Prussia]] from the rest of Germany) was used by Germany as an excuse for its aggressive posture towards Poland. The first shots of the [[Second World War]] in [[Europe]] were fired in Danzig, as German warships attacked a Polish garrison in the port. Following the defeat of Poland, Danzig was reincorporated into the Reich, but on Germany's defeat in 1945 it was ceded to Poland. Danzig was known for its shipyards, and here in 1980 [[Lech Walesa]] founded the [[Solidarity]] trade union that was within a decade to precipitate the collapse of [[Communism]] in [[Eastern Europe]].

[[Category:European Cities and Towns]]
[[Category:Germany]]
[[Category:Poland]]

User talk:ElliotS

2011-12-03T18:16:25Z

ClearView2011: /* Conservative languages */

{{welcome|sig=--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 16:14, 27 October 2011 (EDT)}}

== Conservative languages ==

Hi Elliot, you reclassified Japanese as "Debatable whether conservative" without giving any reasons for doing so. I find HumanGeographer's arguments for Japanese being a conservative language rather convincing and would be interested in hearing your arguments for why you think that's debatable. Thanks, --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:26, 1 December 2011 (EST)
:Japanese has many Conservative features, but the one inescapable truth is that Christianity is almost non-existant there. There are many more Christian Japanese that speak English living outside Japan than there are Christian Japanese who live in Japan. This is clearly because the language is not Conservative. --[[User:ElliotS|ElliotS]] 13:14, 3 December 2011 (EST)
::Or perhaps it's because Japan has a very tradition-bound homogenous culture and people are reluctant to change religion? --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:16, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Richard Nixon

2011-12-03T18:10:42Z

ClearView2011:

{{Officeholder
|name=Richard Nixon
|image=Nixon 30-0316a.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Thelma Catherine "Pat" Ryan
|religion=[[Quaker]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=37th
|terms=January 20, 1969 – August 9, 1974
|vp=[[Spiro Agnew]] [[Gerald Ford]]
|preceded=[[Lyndon Johnson]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Gerald Ford]]
}}
{{Officeholder/vice president
|country=the United States
|number=36th
|terms=January 20, 1953 – January 20, 1961
|president=[[Dwight Eisenhower]]
|preceded=[[Alben W. Barkley]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Lyndon Johnson]]
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=California
|terms=December 4, 1950 – January 1, 1953
|preceded=[[Sheridan Downey]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Thomas Kuchel]]
}}
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=California
|district=12th
|terms=January 3, 1947 – December 1, 1950
|preceded=Jerry Voorhis
|former=y
|succeeded=Patrick J. Hillings
}}
}}
'''Richard Milhous Nixon''' was the 37th [[President of the United States of America]], serving from 1969 to 1974. He was the only U.S. Republican President to resign the office. He also served as the 36th [[Vice President of the United States]] of America under President [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] from 1953 to 1961.

In 1946, he was elected as a [[U.S. Representative]]. As a Congressman from [[California]], and as a member of the [[House Committee on Un-American Activities]], he investigated Communists and instigated the successful prosecution of [[Alger Hiss]] for spying for the Soviet Union during [[World War II]].

After two terms in the House, he was elected to the U.S. Senate in November of 1950.

After losing his first presidential race to [[John F. Kennedy]] by a narrow margin in 1960, he unsuccessfully ran for Governor of California in 1962, losing to incumbent Edmund G Brown.

In 1968 he was elected president, and was reelected in 1972 by a landslide, but resigned the presidency on August 9, 1974 due to a threat of impeachment by Congress for the [[Watergate Affair]]. The main impeachment charge was that Nixon obstructed justice by telling employees to mislead FBI investigators about the Watergate burglary.

==Early Life==
Richard Milhous Nixon was born in [[Yorba Linda, California]], on January 9, 1913. Soon after, his family moved to Whittier, California. Nixon's childhood years were not unusual for someone growing up in two small towns near Los Angeles. His parents, Frank and Hannah Nixon, were devout [[Quakers]]. Nixon had four siblings and saw two of his brothers die from [[tuberculosis]]. Nixon grew up relatively poor, as his father earned a modest income from his gas station and grocery store. But due to these hard times, he established a quality of determination and strong work ethic. A good student and a hard worker, Nixon excelled scholastically at both Whittier High School and Whittier College.

Nixon attended Fullerton High School and Whittier High School. He graduated second in his class from Whittier with honor in the study of [[Shakespeare]] and [[Latin]]. He was awarded scholarships to [[Harvard]] and [[Yale]] University, but declined due to his family's financial condition. He instead enrolled at [[Whittier College]], a local [[Quaker]] school, where he co-founded the "Orthogonian Society", a new organzation to the campus geared towards working-class students. At Whittier, Nixon, a formidable debater, was elected freshman class president, and served as student body vice president in his junior year and president in his senior year. While at Whittier, he taught Sunday school at [[East Whittier Friends Church]] and remained a member all his life.

A lifelong football fan, Nixon practiced with the team, but played little. In 1934, he graduated second in his class from Whittier, and went on to [[Duke University|Duke University School of Law]], where he received a full scholarship, was elected president of the Duke Bar Association, and graduated third in his class.

In 1942 Nixon became a lawyer for the Office of Price Administration, the wartime liberal [[New Deal]] program that regulated all prices and rationed basic commodities.

During World War II, Nixon served in the [[Navy]] as a reserve officer, serving in the supply corps on several islands in the South Pacific, commanding cargo handling units in the SCAT. There he was known as "Nick" and for his exceptional poker-playing skills, banking a large sum of money that helped finance his first campaign for Congress. He rose to the rank of Lieutenant commander and resigned in March, 1946.

==Congressional Career==
:''See related article : [[Legacy of Alger Hiss]]
After service in the Navy he entered an entirely unstructured California political environment-- parties hardly existed there in the 1940s, and many voters were recent arrivals. As a result Nixon never built a secure base in California (or anywhere else). In 1946 he defeated five-term Democrat Representative Jerry Voorhis, a leading liberal. Two years later, Nixon ran for reelection in both the Republican and Democrat primaries and won endorsement of both parties in the general election. <ref>Only California allowed this sort of "cross filing," and they later dropped it and went to normal intra-party primaries. Richard Matthew Pious, ''The Presidents,'' pg. 515</ref> Nixon took typical positions for a California Republican: he was hostile to [[Communism]], internationalist in outlook, and middle-of-the road in economic and social issues.

Nixon's first major breakthrough came in Congress, where his dogged investigation broke the impasse of the [[Alger Hiss]] spy case in 1948. The idea that Hiss--a former senior adviser to President [[Franklin Roosevelt]]-- was a Soviet spy alarmed the nation, and won the lifelong hatred of the left, whose veneer of patriotism was dissolved. [[Image:Eisenhower_Nixon.jpg|left|thumb|275px|Eisenhower and Nixon on a 1952 Campaign Stop.]]
In 1950 Nixon was elected to the [[United States Senate]] by defeating a leading Hollywood liberal, Helen Gahagan Douglas using tough campaign tactics that emphasized her votes with the far left.

==Vice Presidency==

Because of his membership of the California delegation at the 1952 [[Republican National Convention]], his strong anti-[[communist]] credentials, and his appeal to the [[west]]ern part of the [[United States]], Nixon was named as [[General]] [[Dwight Eisenhower]]'s [[Vice President of the United States of America|vice presidential]] [[running mate]].

In the midst of the campaign questions arose about a group of seventy-six [[business]]man from southern California who had contributed to a secret slush fund for Richard Nixon, being paid $900 a month (totaling $18,168 up to that point). There was talk on Nixon dropping off the ticket. Nixon claimed that money was used for office expenses only. On September 23, 1952 he gave the now infamous "Checkers Speech" in which he said that he and his wife, [[Patrica Nixon|Pat Nixon]] do not live lavishly, saying that his wife had not even owned a fur coat but only "a respectable Republican cloth coat." He went on to bring up a gift someone gave his [[child]]ren, a "little cocker spaniel [[dog]]" named Checkers, and said defiantly, "regardless of what they about it, we're going to keep it." The speech was meet with overwhelming public approval. In November, Eisenhower and Nixon swept their way in office, winning 55 percent of the vote, to 44 percent for Democrat opponent [[Adlai Stevenson]].

As Vice President Richard Nixon occasionally presided over the Senate and chaired the President's Commission on [[Government]] Contracts, which dealt with radical discrimination by government contractors, and the Cabinet Committee on Price Stability for Economic growth (although Nixon had little influence over it). Nixon also chaired the National Security Council. However, in a [[press]] conference President Eisenhower was asked to give an example of Richard Nixon's contributions as Vice President, to which Eisenhower replied, "If you give me a week, I might think of one."

Nixon did, however, have an influential role in [[White House]] political operations. He campaigned for Republican members of Congress in 1954 and 1958. Nixon positioned himself as Presidential and his famous 1959 "Kitchen debate" in [[Moscow]] with [[Soviet Union]] President [[Nikita Khrushchev]] boosted his public appeal. By the end of the Eisenhower administration Nixon had become the top contender to be the Republican nomination for the 1960 Presidential election.

[[Image:Johnfkennedyrichardnixon.jpg|left|thumb|275px|Vice President Nixon and Senator Kennedy in their 1960 Presidential Debate.]]

==1960 Presidential Campaign==

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1960]]''

Nixon easily won the Republican nomination for the presidency, but ran a poor campaign in the general election. Despite division over the modern [[civil rights]] movement, the country was enjoying a period of relative prosperity.

The most prominent issues were the [[Cold War]] and the new assumption of power of [[dictator]] [[Fidel Castro]] of [[Cuba]]. Public opinion polls showed that the country trusted Nixon more on [[foreign policy]] issues while Democrat opponent [[John F. Kennedy]] was favored on domestic issues. 1960 marked the first presidential election in which televised debates were used. Kennedy won the debates, which resulted in him defeating Nixon by a razor-thin margin of 49.7 percent of the vote to 49.5 percent. Nixon believed that there was voter fraud in Cook County, [[Illinois]] which resulted in him losing that state, however Nixon chose not to contest the results. Kennedy's lead in the electoral college was such that he still would have been elected even if he had lost Illinois.

==1962 Gubernatorial Campaign==

After the election Nixon returned to California and ran for [[Governor]] in 1962 against incumbent [[Pat Brown]]. Brown defeated Nixon with 52 percent of the vote to 46 percent. In a post-election press conference Nixon announced the end of his political career and said to the press "you won't have Richard Nixon to kick around with anymore."

Nixon continued to campaign for Republican congressional candidates and traveled the world, sharpening his knowledge of foreign issues.

==1968 Presidential Campaign==

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1968]]''

By 1967 Nixon's financial backers were raising funds to bankroll another bid for the White House. In the Republican primaries and caucuses moderates and liberals supported [[Michigan]] Governor [[George Romney]] and later [[New York]] Governor [[Nelson Rockefeller]], while [[conservative]]s supported [[California]] Governor [[Ronald Reagan]]. Nixon was able to win support from southern conservatives and pass Reagan in the polls, eventually winning the nomination. In Nixon's second attempt for the Presidency the United States was in the midst of the [[Vietnam War]], with Democrats associated with the violence. With President [[Lyndon Johnson]] losing [[credibility]] because of the increasingly unpopular [[war]], he declined to run for another term. [[Vice President of the United States of America|Vice President]] [[Hubert Humphrey]] narrowly won the Democrat nomination. [[Alabama]] Governor [[George Wallace]], a strong segregationist, entered the race as a third party candidate. Nixon promised to end the bombing in [[Vietnam]], unify the nation and restore law and order to the country.

President Johnson helped Humphrey after he announced that bombing in North Vietnam would be halted and that a cease-fire would follow, however his announcement was too late. On election day, Nixon defeated Humphrey by over 100 electoral votes, although he won the election with only 43 percent of the vote to 42 percent, partly because Wallace took 13 percent.

==1972 Reelection Campaign==

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1972]]''

President Nixon's reelection campaign got underway in 1972. He had high approval ratings for his handling with China and the Soviet Union. Nixon's Democrat opponent, [[South Dakota]] Senator [[George McGovern]] was viewed too [[liberal]] by many Americans. However, there was still concern in the Nixon camp because of his close victory in 1968 and the United States' continued involvement in the Vietnam War. He chose to engage in tactics that included an effort to steal information in the Democrat Party's headquarters. Five Nixon supporters broke into the party's office at the Watergate complex in [[Washington, D.C.]] on June 17, 1972. This however did not become an issue in the campaign, with President Nixon trumping McGovern in 49 out of 50 states.

==Presidency (1969-1974)==

===Administration===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Office
! Name
! Term
|-
| [[President]]
| Richard Nixon
| 1969-1974
|-
| [[Vice President of the United States of America|Vice President]]
| [[Spiro Agnew]]
| 1969-1973
|-
|
| [[Gerald Ford]]
| 1973-1974
|-
| [[Secretary of State]]
| [[William P. Rogers]]
| 1969-1973
|-
|
| [[Henry Kissinger]]
| 1973-1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Treasury]]
| [[David M. Kennedy]]
| 1969-1971
|-
|
| [[John Connally]]
| 1971-1972
|-
|
| [[George Shultz]]
| 1972-1974
|-
|
| [[William Simon]]
| 1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Defense]]
| [[Melvin R. Laird]]
| 1969-1973
|-
|
| [[Elliot Richardson]]
| 1973
|-
|
| [[James Schlesinger]]
| 1973-1974
|-
| [[Attorney General]]
| [[John N. Mitchell]]
| 1969-1972
|-
|
| [[Richard Kleindienst]]
| 1972-1973
|-
|
| [[Elliot Richardson]]
| 1973-1974
|-
|
| [[William B. Saxbe]]
| 1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Interior]]
| [[Walter Joseph Hickel]]
| 1969-1971
|-
|
| [[Rogers Morton]]
| 1971-1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Agriculture]]
| [[Clifford M. Hardin]]
| 1969–1971
|-
|
| [[Earl Butz]]
| 1971–1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Commerce]]
| [[Maurice Stans]]
| 1969–1972
|-
|
| [[Peter Peterson]]
| 1972–1973
|-
|
| [[Frederick B. Dent]]
| 1973-1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Labor]]
| [[George Shultz]]
| 1969–1970
|-
|
| [[James D. Hodgson]]
| 1970–1973
|-
|
| [[Peter J. Brennan]]
| 1973–1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare]]
| [[Robert Finch]]
| 1969–1970
|-
|
| [[Elliot Richardson]]
| 1970–1973
|-
|
| [[Caspar Weinberger]]
| 1973–1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Housing and Urban Development]]
| [[George Romney]]
| 1969–1973
|-
|
| [[James Thomas Lynn]]
| 1973-1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Transportation]]
| [[John A. Volpe]]
| 1969–1973
|-
|
| [[Claude Brinegar]]
| 1973-1974
|-
|}

=== Vietnam War ===

[[Image:PresidentNixon.jpg|left|thumb|275px|President Nixon points out the NVA sanctuaries along the Cambodian border in his speech to the American people announcing the Cambodian incursion, 04/30/70]] Two months after coming into office American deaths in Vietnam reached thirty-six hundred. Nixon appointed [[Harvard]] Professor [[Henry Kissinger]] as National Security Adviser, who had secret peace talks with the North Vietnamese. Peace negations dragged on throughout Nixon's first term. His Vietnam strategies included "Vietnamization," a policy aimed at reducing U.S. casualties and troops, while also convincing the American public that the Vietnamese people could assume the primary responsibility of waging war. To win support for the war among the [["silent majority,"]] Nixon pursued the [["politics of polarization."]] Instrumental to this cause was Nixon's first vice president [[Spiro T. Agnew]], who criticized opponents of the war as "nattering nabobs of negativism," and an "effete corps of impudent snobs." Nixon also sought to instill in the North Vietnamese the belief that he was volatile and unstable, and willing to use nuclear weapons in the war, a strategy known as the "madman scenario."

On April 30, 1970, ten days after announcing that 150,000 American troops would be withdrawn from Vietnam in the following year, Nixon announced that U.S. troops had invaded Cambodia. This announcement brought widespread protests and college and university campuses across the nation. Four students were shot by National Guardsmen at [[Kent State University]] in Ohio and two died at [[Jackson State University]] in Mississippi. Many campuses shut down, some for the remainder of the academic year. The [[Paris Peace Accords]] were signed on January 27, 1973, signaling the beginning of the peace process that ended with the evacuation of the last American personnel two years later on April 30, 1975. Pictures of the last U.S. Marines evacuating the American Embassy by helicopter while civilians, many of which were employed by the Americans during the war, attempted to climb aboard, has become a symbol of the U.S. defeat in Vietnam.

=== Policy of Detente ===

[[Image:Leonid_Brezhnev_and_Richard_Nixon.jpg‎|right|thumb|275px|Richard M. Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev, 05/19/73.]] Nixon worked to establish a friendlier relationship with the Soviet Union and [[China]]. The Soviets were not pleased of Nixon, a man who spent his career attacking communism, had become President. Although still a strong anti-communist, Nixon understood the growing role of China and Western Europe, realizing that he had to be more diplomatic. With the help of National Security Adviser [[Henry Kissinger]], Nixon created an approach called Detente, which was relaxed tensions between the United States and its two major communist rivals, the Soviet Union and China. Nixon began the policy of detente by lifting trade and travel restrictions.

After a long series of highly secret negations between Kissinger and Chinese leaders, Nixon announced that he would visit China in February 1972. During the historic trip, the leaders of both nations agreed to have more normal relationships. Nixon told the Chinese during a banquet toast, "Let us start a long march together, not in lockstep, but on different roads leading to the same goal, the goal of building world structure of peace and justice." In taking the trip, Nixon hoped to both strengthen ties with China but also believed it would encourage the Soviet Union to be more diplomatic. He proved to be correct. Shortly after the public learned about China, the Soviets proposed an American-Soviet summit, a high level diplomatic meeting that was held in May 1972. President Nixon flew to Moscow for a week long summit, thus becoming the first American President since [[World War 2]] to visit the Soviet Union.

The two superpowers signed the first Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, or SALT 1, a plan to limit nuclear arms that the two nations had been working on for years. Nixon and Soviet President [[Leonid Brezhnev]] also agreed to increase trade and exchange scientific information. President Nixon had made a significant mark on the world stage with major foreign policy triumphs.

=== Watergate ===

The event that ended the Nixon presidency began on June 17, 1972, when five men, all employees of Nixon's reelection campaign (CREEP), were caught breaking into rival Democratic headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, DC. The intruders and two other accomplices were convicted of burglary and wiretapping in Jan. 1973. The [[Watergate affair]] ultimately caused Nixon to resign on August 9, 1974. On September 9, 1974, his successor Gerald Ford granted him "a full, free, and absolute pardon." This effectively ended investigation into the depth of Nixon's involvement in the break-in at [[Democratic National Committee]] headquarters in the Watergate hotel, or any other criminal activities. Former White House Counsel John Dean testified to a Congressional investigating committee of Nixon's involvement in the cover-up.

[[Image:NixonFarewell.jpg|left|thumb|275px|President Nixon delivers his Farewell Remarks to the White House Staff in the East Room, with his family looking on, 08/09/74]] The Congressional hearings revealed Nixon had tape recorded conversations and telephone calls in his office. These recordings reveal that Nixon's role in the cover-up began as early as six days after the break-in. The tapes also reveal an immense scope of crimes and abuses that predate the Watergate break-in. These include campaign fraud, political espionage and sabotage, illegal break-ins, improper tax audits, illegal wiretapping on a massive scale, and a secret slush fund laundered in Mexico to pay those who conducted these operations. The president, citing [[Executive Privilege]], refused to turn the tapes over to the committee. In October 1973 Nixon ordered Elliot Richardson, the attorney general, to fire Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor who had subpoenaed the tapes, but Richardson resigned in protest. Richardson's assistant, William Ruckelshaus, also refused to fire Cox and was fired by Nixon. Finally, Solicitor General Robert Bork fired Cox. The incident, which was trumped in the press as the "Saturday Night Massacre", led to widespread calls for Nixon's impeachment.

The White House released edited transcripts of the tapes in April 1974, and eventually the tapes themselves, after the Supreme Court rejected Nixon's claim to executive privilege. The House Judiciary Committee issued three articles of impeachment on July 30, 1974.

"In all of this," the articles of impeachment summarize, "Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States." After conferring with Republican Senators Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. Nixon was succeeded in office the same day by [[Gerald Ford]]. Ford later pardoned Nixon.

The Nixon White House was also involved in [[Henry_Kissinger#Latin_America| controversies in Latin America]], which included [[Henry_Kissinger#The_Schneider_Affair| an alleged assassination attempt]] in [[Chile]], among [[Henry_Kissinger#Major_Controversies| other questionable activities]].

==Family==

Nixon married Thelma Catherine Ryan, known as "Pat", in 1940. They had two children: Patricia (b. 1946) and Julie (b. 1948).

[[File:Pat nixon.jpg|300px|center]]

==References==
<References/>

==Further reading==

* Aitken, Jonathan. ''Nixon: A Life'' (1993).
* Ambrose, Stephen. ''Nixon'' (3v 1987-1991), the standard scholarly biography [http://www.amazon.com/Nixon-I-Stephen-E-Ambrose/dp/0671657224/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203808418&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search vol 1]; hostile to RN
* Black, Conrad. ''Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full'' (2007) 1150pp; by a conservative; friendly to RN
* Bundy, William. ''A Tangled Web: The Making of Foreign Policy in the Nixon Presidency'' (1998). [http://www.amazon.com/Tangled-Web-Making-Foreign-Presidency/dp/B000C4SRCW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203808485&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Congressional Quarterly. ''Congress and the Nation, 1968-1972'' (1973). Detailed coverage of all the official actions in Washington
* Dallek, Robert. ''Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Nixon-Kissinger-Partners-Robert-Dallek/dp/0060722312/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200450337&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Frick, Daniel. ''Reinventing Richard Nixon: A Cultural History of an American Obsession''. (2008). 344 pages
* Greenberg, David. ''Nixon's Shadow: The History of the Image'' (2004), influential study of his changing reputation [http://www.amazon.com/Nixons-Shadow-History-David-Greenberg/dp/0393326160/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200450337&sr=1-9 excerpt and text search]
* Hoff, Joan. ''Nixon without Watergate'' (1994) a favorable estimate of the presidential years; also titled ''Nixon Reconsidered''; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99580185 online edition]
* Kutler, Stanley I. ''Wars of Watergate: The Last Crisis of Richard Nixon'' (1992), strongly hostile [http://www.amazon.com/Wars-Watergate-Crisis-Richard-Nixon/dp/0393308278/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200450532&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* MacMillan, Margaret. ''Nixon and Mao: The Week That Changed the World'' (2007)
* Matusow, Allen J. ''Nixon's Economy: Booms, Busts, Dollars, and Votes'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Nixons-Economy-Booms-Busts-Dollars/dp/0700608885/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203808547&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Nixon, Richard. ''RN: Memoirs'' (1978),a primary source; one of the most important presidential autobiographies [http://www.amazon.com/RN-Memoirs-Richard-Nixon/dp/0671707418/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203808583&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Pietrusza, David ''1960: LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon: The Epic Campaign that Forged Three Presidencies'' New York: Union Square Press, 2008
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Nixon: Alone in the White House'' (2002). well-received study of the White House years (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/President-Nixon-Alone-White-House/dp/B000066TQ0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200450725&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Schoenebaum, Eleanora, ed. ''Political Profiles: The Nixon/Ford Years'' (1979), biographies of all the main political figures
* Small, Melvin. ''The Presidency of Richard Nixon'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Presidency-Richard-Nixon-American/dp/0700612556/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200450643&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]; hostile
* Suri, Jeremi. ''Henry Kissinger and the American Century'' (2007)

==Primary Sources by Nixon==

*Victory Without War, New York, NY: Pocket Books, 1989.
*Beyond Peace, New York, NY: Random House, 1994.
*Four Great Americans: Tributes Delivered by President Richard Nixon. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1973.
*In the Arena: A Memoir of Victory, Defeat, and Renewal, New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1990.
*Leaders New York, NY: Warner Books, 1982.
*Nixon in Retrospect, 1946-1962: Selected Quotations. Silver Spring, MD: Research Data Publishers, 1973.
*No More Vietnams, New York, NY: Arbor House, 1985.
*Real Peace. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1990.
*RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon, New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1990.
*Seize the Moment: America’s Challenge in a One- SuperpowerWorld. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1992.
*Setting the Course; The First Year, New York, NY: Funk & Wagnalls, 1970.
*Six Crises. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1990.
*Summons to Greatness: A Collage of Inspirational Thought and Practical Ideas from the Messages and Addresses of Richard Nixon, Thirty-Seventh President of the United States, Washington, D.C.: Friends of President Nixon, 1972.
*The Real War, New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1980.

==External Links==

* [http://www.nixonfoundation.org Nixon Birthplace & Library], in Yorba Linda, California
* [http://genealogy.wikia.com/wiki/Richard_Nixon_(1913) Genealogy Wiki] Nixon Family History
* [http://www.californiaresortlife.com/orange/yorba_linda.htm Birthplace Tour]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/

http://www.nixonfoundation.org/

http://www.nixonlibrary.org/

{{DEFAULTSORT:Nixon, Richard}}

{{USPresidents}}
{{USVicePresidents}}
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:Diplomacy]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:United States Veterans]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T18:06:56Z

ClearView2011:

Echinoderms

2011-12-03T17:51:45Z

ClearView2011:

Echinoderms are marine animals of the class Echinoidea that are characterized by radial symmetry, such as the [[sea urchin]]. It also includes those with multiple arms radiating from a central body, such as [[Starfish]] and [[brittlestar]]s..

[[Category: Invertebrates]]

Holocaust

2011-12-03T17:50:37Z

ClearView2011: /* The death camps */

[[Image:Warsaw ghetto.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Jewish families are forced from the Warsaw Ghetto in the aftermath of its destruction by the S.S. in 1943. Their final destination was the killing center at Treblinka.]]
The '''Holocaust''' was systematic destruction by the [[Nazis]] of [[Jews|Jewish culture]], society, and, in ''die Endlösung'' (the '''Final Solution'''), the lives of all Jews, 1933-1945. Before Hitler and the Nazis came to power in 1933 they demonized the Jews as subhuman and the cause of all Germany's troubles. In power, the Nazis first removed the Jews from power and prestige; from 1938-41 they imposed severe restrictions on Jews in Germany (many of whom fled). The killing started in 1941, as the [[SS]] under [[Heinrich Himmler]] systematically rounded up all the Jews the Nazis could reach, and killed about 6 million in extermination camps. Millions of non-Jews were killed in separate Nazi operations.

The Holocaust was known but downplayed 1945-60, but since 1960 has become one of the central memories and horrors of [[World War II]], shaping policies by and towards [[Israel]] and profoundly shaping the modern conceptions of guilt and evil.

==Origins==
Hatred of the Jews has a long history in Germany and Europe, but the modern forms of antisemitism emerged in the 19th century as a new spirit of nationalism allowed some Germans to sharply differentiate themselves from the Jews, a cultural subgroup that was well integrated into German society. By the end of the century ant-semitic politicians and organized movements had emerged. Antisemitism was muted during World War I, but exploded in 1919 as the defeated war veterans cast about for someone to blame for the national disgrace.
===Stage 1: to 1933===
The Nazi party emerged among veterans in the early 1920s, with a violent attack on Jews as [[Adolf Hitler]]'s central theme. After years of struggling to push their ideology into the masses through propaganda and violence, the Nazi Party in Germany came to power in January 1933, with Hitler as Chancellor, with his ideology firmly entrenched within the party. In his book ''Mein Kampf'', Hitler expounded on the idea that the Aryan race, of which he was a part, was the so-called “master race”, and had a moral right and duty to subjugate the world; in the way stood the ''untermenschen'' (“sub-humans”), which, according to the Nazis, were meant to serve the master race as slaves. At the very bottom were the Jews, who were depicted as an evil race bent on world domination.

The [[Nazis]] violently hated all the Jews and everything they stood for. They worked relentlessly toward the goal of removing all possible Jewish influences. Starting in the 1920s (when they were a small party) with a violently anti-Semitic rhetoric that blamed Jews for all the problems of Germany and the modern world, the Nazis defined Jews as a permanent “race” that would never change and could never be improved. The Nazis also strongly disliked Christianity as being too Jewish. Their goal was to return to a pre-Christian, all-Aryan (imaginary) world.

The Nazi goal was first to remove all Jewish influence, then deport all Jews from Europe.

===Stage 2: 1933-38===
The second stage of Nazi policy concerning Jews, from 1933 to 1938, when Hitler was dictator in a peacetime Germany, involved the removal of Jews from all public office. The Nazis encouraged the Jews to leave and half of the Jewish population in Germany did so (including famous scientist [[Albert Einstein]] and the teenaged [[Henry Kissinger]]). The Nazis opened Dachau and other “concentration camps” to punish thousands of their political enemies—including many Jews. About 1,000 Jews were murdered in concentration camps inside Germany before 1939; these were distinct from the killing camps that were opened in 1942 in Poland.

Jewish businesses began feeling the effects of a boycott that began on April 1, 1933, followed by the dismissal of Jewish civil service workers, judges, and university professors a week later. On May 10, some ten days after laws were enacted which prevented Jewish children from attending public schools except by quota, thousands of university students and professors stormed bookstores and libraries to remove books they deemed “un-Germanic” and opposed to Nazi teachings, throwing them into public bonfires. The [[Nuremberg Laws]] were enacted in 1935, which revoked German citizenship from Jews as well as declaring the marriage between a Jew and a [[German]] illegal. By 1938, the political and economic foundations of German Jewry were completely decimated.

===Stage 3: 1938-41===
Stage three, from 1938 to 1941, involved increasingly severe and humiliating restrictions for Jews. “Kristallnacht” in November 1938 was a systematic violent attack on all synagogues. World public opinion grew hostile to the Nazi actions, who ; they responded by supporting pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic political movements in France and other countries, including the “German-American Bund.” After invading Poland in 1939, the Nazis forced two million Jews into a few ghettos with below-starvation food allotments. Before the war plans were made to start deporting Jews from Germany. The war meant Nazi control of millions of Jews in the east (and many in the west too), and deportation became impossible. That left extermination as the Nazi plan.
====Crystal Night====

On November 7, 1938, Herschel Grynszpan, a German Jew living in Paris and upset over his family’s forced deportation to Poland, shot the third secretary (Ernst vom Rath) to the German ambassador in France, who died two days later. His assassination touched off a wave of riots on November 9, seemingly at the behest of the Nazi minister of propaganda, [[Joseph Goebbels]], but this was expanded and organized better with the issuing of orders by the head of the S.S., [[Reinhard Heydrich]], later that evening, who specified that S.S. and S.A. units in various cities would march out with sledgehammers against Jewish homes, businesses, and synagogues - but in civilian clothes only (to symbolize the “righteous” anger of the German people). Business could not be looted, as the property inside was deemed property of the state; Jewish property near German shops and homes could not be burned, but smashed; and many Jewish males, particularly the wealthy, were subject to arrest. Over 35,000 men were arrested that night, and according to figures released by Heydrich the total number of arrests exceeded 100,000; 815 Jewish businesses were destroyed, 191 Synagogues were destroyed or demolished, and over 2,000 were dead. By the end of the week local jails as well as the new [[Buchenwald]] and [[Dachau]] concentration camps were quickly filled. The Jews were declared responsible for the damages done to their property and ordered to pay the staggering sum of one billion Reichmarks.

The sidewalks were littered with shards of the expensive storefront glass that was preferred for shops in Germany, which was called ''Kristallglas'' for its high-quality. The amount of glass left behind gave the incident its name: ''Kristallnacht'' (“Crystal Night”), or the Night of Broken Glass.
====World War II: 1939-41====
When World War II began in the fall of 1939, Jews in Germany were completely marginalized. They could not own property, go to a park, associate with Germans, enter a library or museum, work in any professional field or engage in business, nor could their children attend public schools. Public transportation was forbidden them in 1941, and the wearing of the yellow Star of David badge on their clothing became mandatory. They were also, prior to September 1, forced to migrate from countries and territories which had come under Hitler’s wing (the Rhineland, Austria, the Sudetenland), with many being deported to Poland.

====Poland====
By September 21, 1939, Poland was now the “General Government” protectorate under former lawyer [[Hans Frank]], and on that day Heydrich ordered the establishment of ''Judenrates'' (Jewish councils) which comprised 24 men - political leaders and rabbis – and whose personal responsibility was to carry out, to the letter, all German orders. This would include supplying people for work details, usually mundane things like digging ditches to amuse their Nazi overlords. Later, they were made to be responsible for supplying thousands of people a day for the “work” camps of [[Treblinka]], [[Sobibor]], [[Belzec]], and new one under construction near the town of Oswiecim, which the Germans called [[Auschwitz]].

Thousands, nearly 30% of the total population of Warsaw, were crammed into just over 2% of the city’s total land area, a density of 200,000 people per square mile. Naturally disease and malnutrition would take its toll, but for the German overlords this was a minor inconvenience. The ghetto was a temporary place to hold all of Europe’s Jews until a final solution was determined, and when the Nazis attacked its ally, the Soviet Union, in June 1941, the killing began in earnest.
====Black soldiers====
The Germans did not generally commit atrocities against Allied soldiers in the West in 1940, with one major exception. About 40,000 black African combat troops in the French army became targets of Nazi wrath. Elite German units, acting on the own in accord with longstanding racial hatred of Africans, shot about 1500 to 3000 black soldiers in French uniforms after they had surrendered.<ref>Raffael Scheck, ''Hitler's African Victims: The German Army Massacres of Black French Soldiers in 1940'' (2006) [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=24173 online review]. </ref>

===Stage 4: 1941-42===
Stage 4 began when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941. All Russian Jews were assumed to be Communist agents and large scale killing of political enemies began in Poland. Special units of the SS, the Security Police, and the Security Service (Einsatzgruppen der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD, Einsatz- and Sonderkommandos) not only massacred large numbers of Jews, but routinely included handicapped persons in open-air mass shootings. Seven of the “Einsatzgruppen” rounded up and shot Polish Catholic priests, intellectuals, and political leaders. Another five units (with 3,000 men) followed the Red Army and executed Communist commissars and partisans, and about 600,000 Russian Jews.
====The Einsatzgruppen====
[[Image:Babi Yar.jpg|right|150px|left|thumb|1943 German photo of Soviet POWs forced to dig up the thousands of Jews killed at Babi Yar two years before; the Nazis destroyed the evidence by burning the bodies.]]
Alongside the German Army were special mobile units whose job it was to locate and kill Jews, Gypsies, Soviets commissars, and others deemed unfit in the areas controlled by the army. These ''Einsatzgruppen'' (“special units”) were also aided by local populations who felt the Germans had relieved them of [[Soviet]] occupation as well as sharing a hatred for Jews and other minorities. Making no difference between young or old, male or female, the Einsatzgruppen killed 70,000 Jews at Ponary, near Vilnius, [[Lithuania]]; 33,771 Jews were machine-gunned in a ravine known as Babi Yar near [[Kiev]], [[Ukraine]], between [[September]] 28-29, 1941 [http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/yevtushenko.htm]; 9,000 Jews were killed at the Ninth Fort at Kaunas, Lithuania, on October 28, of which half of the dead were children. On November 30 in the Rumbula Forest outside of Riga, Latvia, between 25,000-28,000 were killed.

By mid-1941, the Ukrainian SSR had the largest population of Jews in Europe. The addition of the eastern provinces of Poland in late 1939 as well as the seizure of sections of Romanian territory in June 1940 led to some 2.7 million Jews living within the borders of the newly enlarged republic. About 85% lived in cities. By 1944, 1.6 million of these Jews had died at the hands of the Germans and their allies and auxiliaries. Unlike the majority of the Holocaust's later victims who died in the industrialized mass murder of the death camps, the overwhelming bulk of Ukraine's Jews died in mass shootings during the initial stages of the war.

The killings were done in first and second waves, with the bodies buried in mass graves. When the Soviets threatened and carried out counter-offensives to reclaim lost territory, special units made up of concentration camp inmates (''sonderkomandos'') would return to the sites, dig up the bodies, and burn them in mass pyres, destroying the evidence of their crimes. The number of individual persons killed by the Einsatzgruppen has been estimated at a bare minimum of one million.

===Stage 5: 1942-44===
Stage 5 began at The [[Wannsee Conference]] in January 1942 began stage five of Nazi power; it was then that when top Nazis decided on a “Final Solution” —to round up and secretly execute all the Jews of Europe. Killing centers were opened in Poland, and thousands of trainloads of Jews were transported there. Jews were gassed immediately upon arrival. Over three million Jews (and numbers of gypsies and other hated groups) were murdered, mostly in 1942–43.
====Wannsee Conference====
On January 20, 1942 at a villa near Berlin named Wannsee a conference was convened by Heydrich to implement methods and ideas for a "final solution to the Jewish question" (''die Endlösung der Judenfrage''). At the conference were fifteen men, among them Heydrich’s head of Jewish affairs, [[Adolf Eichmann]], who would be instrumental in providing the logistical plans for removing the Jews to the camps. The men represented government agencies, such as the Gestapo, the Race and Resettlement Office, the S.S., as well as a representative from the General Government in Poland. As Heydrich himself explained near the beginning of the conference, ideas were in play on relocating Jews:
:''“Another possible solution of the [Jewish] problem has now taken the place of emigration—i.e., evacuation of the Jews to the east…Such activities are, however, to be considered as provisional actions, but practical experience is already being collected which is of greatest importance in relation to the future final solution of the Jewish problem.”''

The minutes of the meeting were kept, but had been edited by Heydrich. The language it contains euphemisms in place of what was really said. ''Evacuation of Jews to the east'' and ''resettlement'' meant relocation to the concentration and extermination camps in Poland; ''special handling'' regarded the killing of Jews, either through slave labor in which the Jew was worked to death, or being killed immediately on arrival. The ''final solution'' was put into practice within a few months of the conference, as the bullets of the machine guns and the exhaust of carbon monoxide were replaced by the more efficient killing methods installed in the first gas chambers.

===Stage 6: 1944-45===
Stage 6 arrived when the Soviet armies overran the Polish camps in 1944–45 and, liberated the survivors.

But the killing continued unabated, even to the last week of the war. As territory was regained by Soviet forces, the death camps were evacuated of survivors and destroyed as much as possible in a futile attempt to hide the evidence. The survivors were moved west into Germany, usually in hellish death marches, and interned in concentration camps where death still awaited them; such killing by the S.S. took priority over military matters at times.
[[Image:Ike at Ordruf.jpg|left|150px|thumb|General Dwight D. Eisenhower saw for himself the carnage wrought by the Nazis when he toured the Ohrdruf concentration camp on April 12, 1945. These prisoners were executed prior to the camp's liberation.]]

In all, six million Jews were murdered; most of the 300,000 survivors emigrated to the United States or Israel.

==The people involved==
Analytically, the people involved in the Holocaust can be divided into the following groups:
===Victims===
Millions were victimized by the Nazi regime during the Holocaust. The Jews were always the principal targets; [[Anne Frank]] in the Netherlands was the most famous victim. However, the Nazis also systematically hunted down and murdered the Roma people (“Gypsies”). They also targeted special enemies, including Communist activists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, and people with disabilities. The last group was the target of euthanasia programs carried out in German hospitals in 1939–1941. Some of these programs were stopped when German Christian leaders mobilized public opinion against them.
===Perpetrators===
Under the guidance of an all-powerful führer (Hitler), the Nazis believed fervently in force, violence, and terror as their best weapons. The most fanatical Nazis joined the [[SS]], which carried out most of the executions. The Final Solution was directed by [[Heinrich Himmler]], commander of the SS and Minister of the Interior. His top aide was [[Reinhard Heydrich]], head of the Gestapo and, after 1939, of all the secret police agencies grouped into the RSHA; he was assassinated by Czech commandos with British help in 1942. [[Adolf Eichmann]] was the senior SS bureaucrat in charge of handling deportation and transportation. However, regular German army police units also systematically killed large numbers of civilians and POWs on the Eastern Front.<ref> After the war, West Germany recognized its guilt and made large financial payments to Israel; Communist East Germany refused to do the same.</ref>

====Endlösung====
[[Image:Heydrich.jpg|right|150px|thumb|''Obergruppenführer'' Reinhard Heydrich, the man who convened the Wannsee Conference with the intention of determining a "final solution to the Jewish question".]]
:''To Gruppenführer Heydrich:''
:''Supplementing the task assigned to you by the decree of January 24, 1939, to solve the Jewish problem by means of emigration and evacuation in the best possible way according to present conditions, I hereby charge you to carry out preparations as regards organizational, financial, and material matters for a total solution (Gesamtlösung) of the Jewish question in all the territories of Europe under German occupation.''
:''Where the competency of other central organizations touches on this matter, these organizations are to collaborate.''
:''I charge you further to submit to me as soon as possible a general plan of the administrative material and financial measures necessary for carrying out the desired final solution (Endlösung) of the Jewish question.'' (Order from Hermann Göring to Reinhard Heydrich, July 31, 1941)

====The death camps====
[[Image:Hgdye56.jpg|right|200px|thumb|''Selektion'' of Hungarian Jews at the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp in May/June 1944. To be sent to the right meant slave labor; to the left, the gas chambers.]]
In the early years of Nazi Germany concentration camps were built with the expressed purpose of housing political prisoners; this was quickly expanded to Jews and other people the Nazis considered undesirable. But by 1942 new camps were built in eastern Poland as death camps; the victims, once targeted by the Einsatzgruppen coming to them, had been rounded up by units of the Army and Waffen S.S., and forced to travel to their own destruction. The victims were packed tightly into cattle cars - so tight in fact that many would die standing up – and transported by rail to the new extermination camps of Chelmno, Treblinka, Sobibor, [[Majdanek]], and Belzec. The camps were essentially factories which specialized in death, making the process from arrival to counting to shower to disposal coldly efficient.

As they arrived the victims were divided in two: those fit for work, usually young to middle aged men, or possessed a special skill needed in the camp, and the remainder sent for delousing in the showers. Deceived to the end, the “showers” was actually a sealed room in which a chemical tablet known as “[[Zyklon B]]” was dropped through a hole in the ceiling. The cyanide-based vapors would kill the entire room within minutes; within thirty, the room was emptied by the ''sonderkomandos'', cleaned, and ready for another group of victims.

The "Operation Reinhardt" camps (Chelmno, Sobibor, Majdanek and Belzec, used a different execution method; the gas chambers were pumped full of carbon monoxide generated by gasoline engines from captured Soviet tanks. At these camps all arrivals were gassed, as the camps were pure extermination facilities with no attached work camps.

Of the death camps, the one at Osweicim, Poland - Auschwitz - was perhaps the most notorious. Auschwitz was three camps: a prisoner-of-war camp (Auschwitz I), a slave-labour camp (Auschwitz III–Buna-Monowitz) and the extermination camp (Auschwitz II–Birkenau). The arrivals would disembark the trains at Auschwitz II, where the old, handicapped, infirm, sick, and pregnant women would face a German doctor (among them the notorious [[Joseph Mengele]]) in the ''selektion'', where a flick of a thumb could mean the difference between slave labor in the nearby factory run by I.G. Farben (which took advantage of the forced labor by investing some 700 million Reichsmarks in the project), or to their immediate deaths. Those selected for labor would be worked to death by a combination of hard labor and inadequate food and medical care; a second ''selektion'' of their numbers, if they had survived, would mean a trip to the gas chambers.

===Bystanders===
In recent years much controversy has arisen over when President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] learned what about the Nazis, and what he did or did not do. Switzerland was neutral and accepted in some refugees, but it also made large profits by trading and banking with Germany. The Swiss were forced in the 1990s to make reparation payments.

===Collaborators===
In rounding up Jews the Nazis sometimes had the enthusiastic cooperation of pro-Nazi governments (as in France and Slovakia). A few countries, including Italy and Hungary, tried to stall the Nazis, but the Germans took power directly and seized the Jews. Only Bulgaria and Denmark were largely successful in protecting their Jews.
===Resisters===
Resistance took many forms, from individual acts to hundreds of examples of organized, armed resistance. The most famous episode was the month-long uprising of 60,000 remaining Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto in April 1943. At the Sobibor death camp, an uprising in October 1943 allowed 600 prisoners to escape.

Jews stood virtually alone against the Nazi war machine and those who collaborated with them, receiving no aid or assistance from outside, as well as having no access to arms with which to defend themselves. Further, the Nazis took great care to prevent their victims from knowing their true plans right up to the moment of their deaths; at Babi Yar many had believed they were being transported to a “family work camp” right up to the point of standing before their own mass grave. There was also the fear of reprisals against large numbers of Jews within the ghettos, which also prevented resistance. But word of the unbelievable atrocities of the death camps filtered into places like Warsaw, and as the trains were leaving packed with Jews many saw that resistance was preferable to the death that awaited them.

Nine months after the Warsaw deportations had commenced, and after confirmation that their destination was the Treblinka extermination camp, 24-year-old [[Mordecai Anielewicz]] and his Jewish Resistance began the [[Warsaw Ghetto Uprising]] on April 19, 1943, which lasted just over a month.

[[Dietrich Bonhoeffer]] was a Christian pastor and theologian who was opposed to the goings on in Germany. He was involved in the German Resistance and took part in a plan to assassinate Hitler. This led to his capture and eventual execution, under Hitler's order, at Flossenbürg concentration camp on April 9, 1945.

Jews fought alongside partisans elsewhere in France, the Balkans, and Soviet Russia during the last three years of the war. Uprisings also occurred in two of the death camps, Treblinka and Sobibor; the latter was closed as a result and the site razed to hide the evidence.

In a unique case of resistance, the Jews of [[Denmark]] were almost entirely saved by the good will of their neighbors. The Danish government had arranged a system by which they maintained control of the government except for foreign affairs. This allowed the Jews of Denmark to live unmolested for several years. When the Nazis did move to deport the Jews in 1943 the Danish Government resigned in protest. The Danish people began a process of evacuating all of the Jews, en masse, to Sweden. The universities closed so students could assist the evacuation, congregations were urged to help, and the fishing fleets helped to evacuate the Jews by sea. In the end only 500 Danish Jews were captured and placed in Theresienstadt where they remained until the end of the war thanks in part to the continued attentions of the Danish people.<ref>http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/faq/languages/en/04/01/denmark2.php</ref>

===Rescuers===
Rescuers hid potential victims as best they could; the tragic story of [[Anne Frank]] is the most famous. The pope helped protect some Italian Jews; it is still being debated whether or not he could have done much more. The most famous rescuer was Oskar Schindler; —“Schindler’s List” the movie is a tells the true story about of how he saved 1,100 Jews from the Nazis by setting up factories that produced defective munitions.<ref> For further information, see [http://www.teachwithmovies.org/guides/schindlers-list.html] </ref>.

In territory occupied by the Germans the situation was bleak for Jews. Their allies were few and resources were meager. Despite this, many put their lives on the line to provide aid and comfort, as well as putting them in hiding or through a network of underground units to get them to safety. In Poland it was punishable by death to aid Jews, yet a “council for the aid of Jews” known as the Zegota rescued about 5,000 men, women, and children, providing hiding places and forged identity papers. A similar number was hidden by French Huguenots in the little town of Le Chamblon-sur-Lignon.
====Vatican====
Although criticized by many for his silence about the Nazi persecution of the Jews, Pope [[Pius XII]] hid several hundred inside the Vatican, away from Mussolini and German occupiers and quietly worked behind the scenes to do what they could. The Vatican estimates they were able to save upwards of 150,000 Jews during this horrible time. For those who say the Vatican should have done more to save Jews, it should be noted that they weren't even able to stop the killing of Polish Catholics, of whom more than a million lost their lives, so how could they stop the killing of Jews?
====Wallenburg====
Swedish diplomat [[Raoul Wallenburg]], in an attempt to save the last remaining Jews in Hungary, arrived in Budapest on July 9, 1944, and working with neutral diplomats and the Vatican, secured the release of several thousand; his efforts at the rescue of Jews would total well over 100,000 by war’s end, including [[Tom Lantos]], a survivor who became a powerful member of the U.S. Congress.
====Schindler====
A Nazi businessman who took advantage of the slave labor conditions to make a personal profit, [[Oskar Schindler]], would use that profit to bribe camp guards and Nazi officials at the Plazow camp to ensure that the workers he had grown to love and admire would survive the end of the war; among the individuals he played cat and mouse with for their lives was the camp's commandant, Amon Goeth, a sadistic man who shot Jews for target practice from his villa and tortured a captured escapee by shooting the prisoners around him. These men and women, who hid Jews out of a sense of common humanity, would not be forgotten: the state of Israel would recognize them with honorary citizenship several years later.

===Liberators===
The Allies liberated the concentration camps in 1945 — but the question remains as to whether they could have bombed the camps or otherwise stopped the Final Solution.

===Survivors===
The survivors of the Final Solution were very quiet about their experiences until about 1961, when Adolf Eichmann was captured in South America by Israel, tried in Jerusalem, and executed. Since then the Holocaust has become recognized as the most horrible episode of the twentieth20th century, and it has been analyzed in numerous with many books, courses, museums, and movies. The most important museums are Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, the Holocaust Museum in Washington, and the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles.

===Non-Jewish victims===
Jews were not the only victims of Nazi persecution. <ref> It is estimated that around 6 million Jews were killed during the Final Solution, along with as many as another 6 million non-Jews. [http://www.holocaust-history.org/short-essays/heinrich-himmler.shtml] </ref>
Members of unions, members of the Social Democratic Party, and political dissidents were also sent to the camps; indeed they were among the first ones incarcerated immediately following Hitler’s appointment as chancellor. Some 20,000 [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] also were rounded up and sent to the camps, primarily because of refusal to register for the draft, swear allegiance to the state, or give the “Heil Hitler” greeting. [[Homosexual]]s were arrested; they were forced to wear a pink triangle on their prison garments; and sent to the camps. [[Gypsies]] as well were rounded up and imprisoned, and like the Jews, were deliberately marked for killing.

The mentally retarded, the disabled, and the insane were selected for the T-4 Program, which was created in 1939. Dubbed “useless eaters” by S.S. general Ernst Kaltenbrunner, these people were murdered as part of a “euthanasia” campaign, usually by placing them in a special room where a vehicle’s engine provided the carbon monoxide gas that flowed in through a hose in a wall.

Following the outbreak of World War II in [[Poland]], the Nazis killed Polish intelligentsia in territories under their control, politicians, priests, and anyone else deemed part of a Polish leadership; the remainder were deemed slaves to serve their new masters; many were forced to perform hard labor, while many of the children who happened to look Aryan were kidnapped and raised as Germans in German households.

[[Image:Goeth.jpg|right|150px|right|thumb|Amon Goeth, commandant of the Plazow concentration camp near Krakow, Poland. A sadistic man, his recreation was to target and kill individual Jews in the camp with a hunting rifle from the balcony of his villa.]]

==Deaths==
The number of Jews put to death were staggering. Beginning in the summer of 1942 a bare minimum of 960,000 were believed killed at Auschwitz during its three years in operation. At Treblinka, between 750,000-900,000 Jews were killed within 17 months, considering the staff and guards there numbered 120. 600,000 Jews died at Belzac within 10 months by a staff numbering 104. In the eighteen months of its operation, Sobibor killed 250,000.

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="450" style="margin-left:5px"
|-
!colspan="5" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: yellow no-repeat scroll top left;"|Jewish Death Statistics during the Holocaust
|-
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Country
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Prior Jewish Population
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: red no-repeat scroll top left;"|Estimated Number Killed
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Percentage of Total
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Estimated Number of Survivors
|-
|'''Poland'''
|3,300,000
|'''3,000,000'''
|91%
|300,000
|-
|'''Germany'''
|566,000
|'''200,000'''
|36%
|366,000
|-
|'''USSR'''
|3,020,000
|'''1,100,000'''
|36%
|1,920,000
|-
|'''Hungary'''
|800,000
|'''596,000'''
|74%
|204,000
|-
|'''Lithuania'''
|168,000
|'''143,000'''
|85%
|25,000
|-
|'''Estonia'''
|4,500
|'''2,000'''
|44%
|2,500
|-
|'''Latvia'''
|95,000
|'''80,000'''
|84%
|15,000
|-
|'''France'''
|350,000
|'''77,320'''
|22%
|272,680
|-
|'''Austria'''
|185,000
|'''65,000'''
|35%
|120,000
|-
|'''Netherlands'''
|140,000
|'''100,000'''
|71%
|40,000
|-
|'''Belgium'''
|65,700
|'''28,900'''
|45%
|36,800
|-
|'''Romania'''
|342,000
|'''287,000'''
|84%
|55,000
|-
|'''Bohemia Moravia'''
|118,310
|'''71,150'''
|60%
|47,160
|-
|'''Greece'''
|77,380
|'''67,000'''
|87%
|10,380
|-
|'''Czechoslovakia'''
|88,950
|'''71,000'''
|80%
|17,950
|-
|'''Yugoslavia'''
|78,000
|'''63,300'''
|81%
|14,700
|-
|'''Italy'''
|44,500
|'''7,680'''
|17%
|36,820
|-
|'''Bulgaria'''
|50,000
|'''0'''
|0%
|50,000
|-
|'''Denmark'''
|7,800
|'''60'''
|.8%
|7,740
|-
|'''Finland'''
|2,000
|'''7'''
|.03%
|1,993
|-
|'''Norway'''
|1,700
|'''762'''
|45%
|938
|-
|'''TOTAL'''
|'''9,508,340'''
|'''5,962,129'''
|'''63%'''
|'''3,546,211'''
|
|}

==Survivors==
More than nine million people were discovered by the [[Allies]] to have been displaced throughout the European Theater of the war; of these, six million were returned to their native lands. One million refused, citing either a fear of communist persecution or a fear of being discovered to have collaborated with the enemy. The remainder, more than three and a half million Jews, had nothing. For these survivors, life after the war meant searching for loved ones, as well as recovering from the severe effects of malnutrition and disease at the hands of the Nazis.

As to the future of finding homes for the surviving Jews, that was solved in part by both covert and well-publicized efforts to pressure [[Great Britain]] into relinquishing control of [[Palestine]] for the purpose of a Jewish homeland, as well as the relaxing of American immigration laws in 1948 which allowed a large influx of Jewish refugees. So shocking was the Holocaust to the Jewish mindset that it caused a determination of survivors to speed the creation of the State of [[Israel]] in May, 1948, vowing that a repeat of the Holocaust, as well as previous pogroms against the Jews in the past, would not happen again. Since 1948, Israel has fought in four major wars against their neighbors bent on eradicating it, and each time Israel has emerged victorious.

The Allies were just as shocked over the conditions which prevailed at the Nazi death camps, and set up military tribunals as a result. The most famous was the [[Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal|Nürnberg Trials]], taking place 1945-1946 near the site of the Nazi mass rallies. For the first time in history, an international tribunal would try the 22 major living Nazis for crimes against humanity; all but one would be found guilty, and more than half would suffer death by hanging.
==Punishment==
Hitler and Goebbels committed suicide as the Russians were capturing Berlin. Himmler was captured in 1945 and committed suicide before his war crimes trial began. The main war criminals were tried at the International War Crimes Tribunals at Nuremburg in 1945–1947, and at smaller trials throughout Europe. The Holocaust was mentioned at the trials, but the major allegation against defendants was the systematic planning of an unjust war.<ref> The Far East War Crimes Trials were held from 1946 to 1948, and resulted in the conviction of 25 Japanese generals and high officials accused of crimes against peace. Over 2,000 local and regional trials convicted 4,000 Japanese officers accused of mistreating prisoners and civilians.</ref> Many Nazis fled justice, reaching Argentina or other dispant locations. [[Adolf Eichmann]], a chief architect of the Holocaust, was captured while hiding in Argentina under an assumed name, brought to Israel, and put on trial in 1961. He was found guilty, and suffered the first and only death penalty carried out in Israel’s history. Other Nazis would eventually be brought to trial: [[Klaus Barbie]], the “Butcher of Lyon”, was tried in France in 1987, as well as [[Maurice Papon]] a decade later for collaborating with the Nazis. These trials brought to new generations an awareness of the Holocaust.

==Etymology==
The word '''Holocaust''' comes from the Greek word ''holokaustos'' (''holos'': complete, and ''kaustos'': a sacrificial or burnt offering to a god); the [[Hebrew]] words ''Sho'ah'' (Catastrophe) and ''Hurban'' (destruction)<ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/269548/Holocaust</ref> were also used, and and survivors have used both to refer to what seemed to be the complete and utter destruction of the Jewish people at the hands of the Nazis, specifically in the crematoria of the [[concentration camps|extermination camps]] built for that purpose. Many victims have taken offense to the term '''Holocaust''' because of the meaning of the word. The term ''Sho'ah'' has become the preferred term in some parts of the world<ref>http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/resource_center/the_holocaust.asp</ref>

==Books and film==
*''[[Schindler's List]]''

==See also==
[[Image:Lovis Corinth Römische Campagna.jpg|thumb|Römische Campagna by Lovis Corinth; returned to the heirs of a Jew in 2007.]]
* [[Holocaust denial]]
*[[Holocaust Memorial Day]]
*[[Kindertransport]]
* [[History of Poland]]
* [[Bergen-Belsen]], one of the main killing camps
* [[Heinrich Himmler]], in charge of the [[SS]]
* [[SS]], in charge of the killing

==External links==
:[http://www.h-net.org/~holoweb/ H-HOLOCAUST], daily discussion group, edited by scholars; numerous book reviews and reports on current scholarship
:[http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/ Holocaust Encyclopedia]
:[http://www.ushmm.org/ United States Holocaust Memorial Museum] in Washington, D.C.
:[http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/yevtushenko.htm ''Babi Yar'', poem by Yevgeni Yevtushenko]
:[http://www.hmh.org/ Houston Holocaust Museum]
:[http://www.flholocaustmuseum.org/ Florida Holocaust Museum]
:[http://www.va-holocaust.com/ Virginia Holocaust Museum]
:[http://holocausteducationcenter.org/ Holocaust Awareness Museum & Educational Center of Philadelphia; America's First Holocaust Museum]
:[http://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/Nuremberg/Nuremberg.html#search Searchable list of 2300 victims from Nuremberg]
:[http://www.holocaustcentre.net/ Beth Shalom Holocaust Centre in Newark, England]
:[http://www.mhmc.ca/ Montreal Holocaust Memorial Center Museum]
:[http://www.holocaust-mahnmal.de/en German Government's Memorial To Jews Murdered During Holocaust]
:[http://www.amcha.org/ AMCHA: Israeli Association of Holocaust Survivors]
:[http://www.hitler.org/writings/first_writing/ Hitler's first writing about Jewry.] On 16 September, 1919.
{{Clear}}

====Notes====
<references/>

==Bibliography==
===Surveys and victims===
* Bloxham, Donald and Kushner, Tony. ''The Holocaust: Critical Historical Approaches.'' (2005). 238 pp.
* Brandon, Ray, and Wendy Lower, eds. ''The Shoah in Ukraine: History, Testimony, Memorialization.'' (2008). 378 pp. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=24078 online review]
* Dawidowicz, Lucy. ''The War Against the Jews, 1933–1945'' (1986)
** '' Hitler's War Against the Jews: A Young Reader's Version of the War Against the Jews, 1933-1945, by Lucy S. Dawidowicz'' (1978) [http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-War-Against-Jews-Dawidowicz/dp/0874412226/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979155&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Edelheit, Abraham et al. ''History Of The Holocaust: A Handbook and Dictionary'' (1995) 544pp, a standard reference work [http://www.questia.com/read/9134049?title=History%20of%20the%20Holocaust%3a%20A%20Handbook%20and%20Dictionary online edition]
* Friedlander, Saul. ''Nazi Germany and the Jews: 1933-1945'' (2009) abridged version of standard 2 volume history:
** Friedlander, Saul. ''The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945'' (2007), the standard scholarly history [http://www.amazon.com/Years-Extermination-Nazi-Germany-1939-1945/dp/0060190434/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979435&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
** Friedlander, Saul. ''The Years of Persecution:1933-1939'' (1998)
* Friedman, Saul S. ''A History of the Holocaust.'' (2004). 494 pp.
* Gilbert, Martin. ''Never Again: The History of the Holocaust'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Never-Again-Holocaust-Martin-Gilbert/dp/0789304090/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979238&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Gilbert, Martin. ''The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe During the Second World War'' (1987) [http://www.amazon.com/Holocaust-History-Europe-During-Second/dp/0805003487/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979238&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Gilbert, Martin. ''The Routledge Atlas of the Holocaust'' (2002)[http://www.amazon.com/Routledge-Atlas-Holocaust-Historical-Atlases/dp/0415281466/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979238&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* Gutman, Israel. ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Holocaust'' (4 vol 1990), a standard reference work
* Lacqueur, Walter, ed. ''The Holocaust Encyclopedia'' (2001).
* Landau, Ronnie. ''The Nazi Holocaust'' (2002)
* Marrus, Michael A. ''The Holocaust in History'' (1989)
* Niewyk, Donald, and Francis Nicosia. ''The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust.'' (2000) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99854126&oplinknum=4 online edition]; [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=289191002135231 online review]
* Rosen, Philip. ''Dictionary of the Holocaust: Biography, Geography and Terminology.'' (1997)
* Rothkirchen, Livia. ''The Jews of Bohemia and Moravia: Facing the Holocaust.'' (2006). 447 pp.
* Spector, Shmuel ed., ''The Encyclopedia of Jewish Life: Before and During the Holocaust'' (2001).
* Yahil, Leni. ''The Holocaust: The Fate of European Jewry'', (1990).

===Perpetrators===
* Browning, Christopher. ''Nazi Policy, Jewish Workers, German Killers'' (2000)
* Burleigh, Michael. ''The Third Reich: A New History.'' 2000. 864 pp., stresses central role of antisemitism.
* Dawidowicz, Lucy. ''The War Against the Jews, 1933–1945'' (1986)
* Friedlander, Henry. ''The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution.'' (1995) 445 pp. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=2249957902770 online review];[http://www.questia.com/read/9253469?title=The%20Origins%20of%20Nazi%20Genocide%3a%20From%20Euthanasia%20to%20the%20Final%20Solution online edition]
* Friedlander, Saul. ''Nazi Germany and the Jews: Volume 1: The Years of Persecution 1933-1939'' (1998)), the standard scholarly history
* Friedlander, Saul. ''The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945'' (2007), the standard scholarly history [http://www.amazon.com/Years-Extermination-Nazi-Germany-1939-1945/dp/0060190434/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979435&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Gaunt, David; Levine, Paul A.; and Palosuo, Laura, eds. ''Collaboration and Resistance during the Holocaust: Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.'' (2004). 519 pp.
* Goldhagen, Daniel Joseph. ''Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust'' (1997).
* Graml, Hermann. ''Antisemitism in the Third Reich'' (1992).
* Gutman, Israel, ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Holocaust,'' 4 vol (1989)
* Johnson, Eric A. ''Nazi Terror: The Gestapo, Jews, and Ordinary Germans'' (2000). [http://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Terror-Gestapo-Ordinary-Germans/dp/0465049087/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979435&sr=8-13 excerpt and text search]
* Lewy, Guenter. ''The Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies'' (2001). [http://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Persecution-Gypsies-Guenter-Lewy/dp/0195142403/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979549&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Levy, Richard, ed. ''Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution'' (2005)
* Lower, Wendy. ''Nazi Empire-Building and the Holocaust in Ukraine.'' (2005). 307 pp.
* Wachsmann, Nikolaus. "Looking into the Abyss: Historians and the Nazi Concentration Camps," ''European History Quarterly,'' 4 2006; vol. 36: pp. 247 - 278. fulltext in Sage; historiography
* Wistrich, Robert S. ''Hitler and the Holocaust.'' (2001). 295 pp.

===Memory===
* Bartov, Omer. ''Mirrors of Destruction: War, Genocide and Modern Identity.'' (2000). 310 pp. ISBN 978-0-19-507723-0. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=23289980364228 online review]; [http://www.amazon.com/Mirrors-Destruction-Genocide-Modern-Identity/dp/0195151844/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979627&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Bloxham, Donald. ''Genocide on Trial: War Crimes Trials and the Formation of Holocaust History and Memory.'' (2001) 292pp ISBN 978-0-19-820872-3. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=122091071198412 online review]
* Carrier, Peter. ''Holocaust Monuments and National Memory Cultures in France and Germany since 1989: The Origins and Political Function of the Véd'Hiv' in Paris and the Holocaust Monument in Berlin.'' (2005) 267 pp.
* Douglas, Lawrence. ''The Memory of Judgment: The Memory of Judgment: Making Law and History in the Trials of the Holocaust'' (2000) [http://books.google.com/books?id=hiU2C0maeAMC&pg=PP1&dq=intitle:The+intitle:Memory+intitle:of+intitle:Judgment+inauthor:douglas&num=30&as_brr=0&sig=MiETAxY1KKnru9emnC0x3IXWJIE excerpt and text search]
* Greenspan, Henry. ''On Listening to Holocaust Survivors: Recounting and Life History.'' (1998) 220 pp. ISBN 978-0-275-95718-6. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=3035937424750 online review]
* Haggith, Tony and Newman, Joanna, ed. ''Holocaust and the Moving Image: Representations in Film and Television.'' 2005. 317 pp.
* Mikhman, Dan. ''Holocaust Historiography: A Jewish Perspective: Conceptualizations, Terminology, Approaches, and Fundamental Issues'' (2003)
* Roseman, Mark. ''A Past in Hiding: Memory and Survival in Nazi Germany'' (2001). [http://www.amazon.com/Past-Hiding-Memory-Survival-Germany/dp/031242065X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979685&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Rosen, Philip. and Nina Apfelbaum. ''Bearing Witness: A Resource Guide to Literature, Poetry, Art, Music, and Videos by Holocaust Victims and Survivors'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Bearing-Witness-Literature-Holocaust-Survivors/dp/0313310769/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195980447&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Stone, Dan, ed. ''The Historiography of the Holocaust.'' (2004). 573 pp
* Waxman, Zoe Vania. ''Writing the Holocaust: Identity, Testimony, Representation'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Holocaust-Representation-Historical-Monographs/dp/0199206384/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195981167&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Wiesel, Elie, and Robert Franciosi. ''Elie Wiesel: Conversations'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Elie-Wiesel-Conversations-Literary/dp/1578065038/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979990&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Weisel, Elie. ''Night'' (1999).

===Reactions and memory in U.S.===
* Abzug, Robert H. ed. ''America Views the Holocaust, 1933-1945: A Brief Documentary History'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/America-Views-Holocaust-1933-1945-Documentary/dp/0312218192/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195981035&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]
* Lipstadt, Deborah E. ''Beyond Belief: The American Press and the Coming of the Holocaust, 1933–1945'' (1993). [http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Belief-American-Coming-Holocaust/dp/0029191610/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979711&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Newton, Verne W., ed. ''FDR and the Holocaust'' (1996). [http://www.amazon.com/Holocaust-Franklin-Roosevelt-Institute-Diplomatic/dp/0312122268/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979739&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Novick, Peter. ''The Holocaust in American Life'' (1999). [http://www.amazon.com/Holocaust-American-Life-Peter-Novick/dp/0618082328/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979766&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Wyman, David. ''The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941–1945.'' (1984). [http://www.amazon.com/Abandonment-Jews-America-Holocaust-1941-1945/dp/159558174X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979795&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]

===Primary sources===
* Aroneanu, Eugene and Thomas Whissen, eds. ''Inside the Concentration Camps: Eyewitness Accounts of Life in Hitler's Death Camps'' (1996) 176 pp, [http://www.questia.com/read/26185130?title=Inside%20the%20Concentration%20Camps%3a%20Eyewitness%20Accounts%20of%20Life%20in%20Hitler's%20Death%20Camps online edition]
* Greene, Joshua M, and Shiva Kumar, eds. ''Witness: Voices from the Holocaust'' (2000). [http://www.amazon.com/WITNESS-Holocaust-Joshua-M-Greene/dp/0684865262/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979830&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Klemperer, Victor. ''I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years 1942–1945'' (2001). [http://www.amazon.com/Will-Bear-Witness-1942-1945-Diary/dp/0375756973/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979856&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search vol 2]
* Kremer, S. Lillian, ed. ''Holocaust Literature: An Encyclopedia of Writers and Their Work'' (2002).
* Siedlecki, Janusz Nel, et als. ''We Were in Auschwitz'' (2000).
* Szpilman, Wladyslaw. ''The Pianist'' (2000). [http://www.amazon.com/Pianist-Read-Great-Movie/dp/0752864297/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979914&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]

==International Justice==

* Pritchard, R. John, “War Crimes, International Criminal Law, and the Postwar Trials in Europe and Asia.,” Iin Loyd E. Lee ed., ''World War II in Asia and the Pacific and the War’s Aftermath, with General Themes,'' edited by Loyd E. Lee (19987).

===Video===
* “Schindler’s List” (DVD and VHS) (1993).
* [http://college.usc.edu/vhi/ USC Shoah Foundation], largest video archive of testimonies of Holocaust survivors and witnesses,

[[category:European History]]
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Genocide]]
[[Category:Holocaust| ]]
[[Category:Nazis]]

Holocaust

2011-12-03T17:49:41Z

ClearView2011: /* The death camps */

[[Image:Warsaw ghetto.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Jewish families are forced from the Warsaw Ghetto in the aftermath of its destruction by the S.S. in 1943. Their final destination was the killing center at Treblinka.]]
The '''Holocaust''' was systematic destruction by the [[Nazis]] of [[Jews|Jewish culture]], society, and, in ''die Endlösung'' (the '''Final Solution'''), the lives of all Jews, 1933-1945. Before Hitler and the Nazis came to power in 1933 they demonized the Jews as subhuman and the cause of all Germany's troubles. In power, the Nazis first removed the Jews from power and prestige; from 1938-41 they imposed severe restrictions on Jews in Germany (many of whom fled). The killing started in 1941, as the [[SS]] under [[Heinrich Himmler]] systematically rounded up all the Jews the Nazis could reach, and killed about 6 million in extermination camps. Millions of non-Jews were killed in separate Nazi operations.

The Holocaust was known but downplayed 1945-60, but since 1960 has become one of the central memories and horrors of [[World War II]], shaping policies by and towards [[Israel]] and profoundly shaping the modern conceptions of guilt and evil.

==Origins==
Hatred of the Jews has a long history in Germany and Europe, but the modern forms of antisemitism emerged in the 19th century as a new spirit of nationalism allowed some Germans to sharply differentiate themselves from the Jews, a cultural subgroup that was well integrated into German society. By the end of the century ant-semitic politicians and organized movements had emerged. Antisemitism was muted during World War I, but exploded in 1919 as the defeated war veterans cast about for someone to blame for the national disgrace.
===Stage 1: to 1933===
The Nazi party emerged among veterans in the early 1920s, with a violent attack on Jews as [[Adolf Hitler]]'s central theme. After years of struggling to push their ideology into the masses through propaganda and violence, the Nazi Party in Germany came to power in January 1933, with Hitler as Chancellor, with his ideology firmly entrenched within the party. In his book ''Mein Kampf'', Hitler expounded on the idea that the Aryan race, of which he was a part, was the so-called “master race”, and had a moral right and duty to subjugate the world; in the way stood the ''untermenschen'' (“sub-humans”), which, according to the Nazis, were meant to serve the master race as slaves. At the very bottom were the Jews, who were depicted as an evil race bent on world domination.

The [[Nazis]] violently hated all the Jews and everything they stood for. They worked relentlessly toward the goal of removing all possible Jewish influences. Starting in the 1920s (when they were a small party) with a violently anti-Semitic rhetoric that blamed Jews for all the problems of Germany and the modern world, the Nazis defined Jews as a permanent “race” that would never change and could never be improved. The Nazis also strongly disliked Christianity as being too Jewish. Their goal was to return to a pre-Christian, all-Aryan (imaginary) world.

The Nazi goal was first to remove all Jewish influence, then deport all Jews from Europe.

===Stage 2: 1933-38===
The second stage of Nazi policy concerning Jews, from 1933 to 1938, when Hitler was dictator in a peacetime Germany, involved the removal of Jews from all public office. The Nazis encouraged the Jews to leave and half of the Jewish population in Germany did so (including famous scientist [[Albert Einstein]] and the teenaged [[Henry Kissinger]]). The Nazis opened Dachau and other “concentration camps” to punish thousands of their political enemies—including many Jews. About 1,000 Jews were murdered in concentration camps inside Germany before 1939; these were distinct from the killing camps that were opened in 1942 in Poland.

Jewish businesses began feeling the effects of a boycott that began on April 1, 1933, followed by the dismissal of Jewish civil service workers, judges, and university professors a week later. On May 10, some ten days after laws were enacted which prevented Jewish children from attending public schools except by quota, thousands of university students and professors stormed bookstores and libraries to remove books they deemed “un-Germanic” and opposed to Nazi teachings, throwing them into public bonfires. The [[Nuremberg Laws]] were enacted in 1935, which revoked German citizenship from Jews as well as declaring the marriage between a Jew and a [[German]] illegal. By 1938, the political and economic foundations of German Jewry were completely decimated.

===Stage 3: 1938-41===
Stage three, from 1938 to 1941, involved increasingly severe and humiliating restrictions for Jews. “Kristallnacht” in November 1938 was a systematic violent attack on all synagogues. World public opinion grew hostile to the Nazi actions, who ; they responded by supporting pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic political movements in France and other countries, including the “German-American Bund.” After invading Poland in 1939, the Nazis forced two million Jews into a few ghettos with below-starvation food allotments. Before the war plans were made to start deporting Jews from Germany. The war meant Nazi control of millions of Jews in the east (and many in the west too), and deportation became impossible. That left extermination as the Nazi plan.
====Crystal Night====

On November 7, 1938, Herschel Grynszpan, a German Jew living in Paris and upset over his family’s forced deportation to Poland, shot the third secretary (Ernst vom Rath) to the German ambassador in France, who died two days later. His assassination touched off a wave of riots on November 9, seemingly at the behest of the Nazi minister of propaganda, [[Joseph Goebbels]], but this was expanded and organized better with the issuing of orders by the head of the S.S., [[Reinhard Heydrich]], later that evening, who specified that S.S. and S.A. units in various cities would march out with sledgehammers against Jewish homes, businesses, and synagogues - but in civilian clothes only (to symbolize the “righteous” anger of the German people). Business could not be looted, as the property inside was deemed property of the state; Jewish property near German shops and homes could not be burned, but smashed; and many Jewish males, particularly the wealthy, were subject to arrest. Over 35,000 men were arrested that night, and according to figures released by Heydrich the total number of arrests exceeded 100,000; 815 Jewish businesses were destroyed, 191 Synagogues were destroyed or demolished, and over 2,000 were dead. By the end of the week local jails as well as the new [[Buchenwald]] and [[Dachau]] concentration camps were quickly filled. The Jews were declared responsible for the damages done to their property and ordered to pay the staggering sum of one billion Reichmarks.

The sidewalks were littered with shards of the expensive storefront glass that was preferred for shops in Germany, which was called ''Kristallglas'' for its high-quality. The amount of glass left behind gave the incident its name: ''Kristallnacht'' (“Crystal Night”), or the Night of Broken Glass.
====World War II: 1939-41====
When World War II began in the fall of 1939, Jews in Germany were completely marginalized. They could not own property, go to a park, associate with Germans, enter a library or museum, work in any professional field or engage in business, nor could their children attend public schools. Public transportation was forbidden them in 1941, and the wearing of the yellow Star of David badge on their clothing became mandatory. They were also, prior to September 1, forced to migrate from countries and territories which had come under Hitler’s wing (the Rhineland, Austria, the Sudetenland), with many being deported to Poland.

====Poland====
By September 21, 1939, Poland was now the “General Government” protectorate under former lawyer [[Hans Frank]], and on that day Heydrich ordered the establishment of ''Judenrates'' (Jewish councils) which comprised 24 men - political leaders and rabbis – and whose personal responsibility was to carry out, to the letter, all German orders. This would include supplying people for work details, usually mundane things like digging ditches to amuse their Nazi overlords. Later, they were made to be responsible for supplying thousands of people a day for the “work” camps of [[Treblinka]], [[Sobibor]], [[Belzec]], and new one under construction near the town of Oswiecim, which the Germans called [[Auschwitz]].

Thousands, nearly 30% of the total population of Warsaw, were crammed into just over 2% of the city’s total land area, a density of 200,000 people per square mile. Naturally disease and malnutrition would take its toll, but for the German overlords this was a minor inconvenience. The ghetto was a temporary place to hold all of Europe’s Jews until a final solution was determined, and when the Nazis attacked its ally, the Soviet Union, in June 1941, the killing began in earnest.
====Black soldiers====
The Germans did not generally commit atrocities against Allied soldiers in the West in 1940, with one major exception. About 40,000 black African combat troops in the French army became targets of Nazi wrath. Elite German units, acting on the own in accord with longstanding racial hatred of Africans, shot about 1500 to 3000 black soldiers in French uniforms after they had surrendered.<ref>Raffael Scheck, ''Hitler's African Victims: The German Army Massacres of Black French Soldiers in 1940'' (2006) [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=24173 online review]. </ref>

===Stage 4: 1941-42===
Stage 4 began when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941. All Russian Jews were assumed to be Communist agents and large scale killing of political enemies began in Poland. Special units of the SS, the Security Police, and the Security Service (Einsatzgruppen der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD, Einsatz- and Sonderkommandos) not only massacred large numbers of Jews, but routinely included handicapped persons in open-air mass shootings. Seven of the “Einsatzgruppen” rounded up and shot Polish Catholic priests, intellectuals, and political leaders. Another five units (with 3,000 men) followed the Red Army and executed Communist commissars and partisans, and about 600,000 Russian Jews.
====The Einsatzgruppen====
[[Image:Babi Yar.jpg|right|150px|left|thumb|1943 German photo of Soviet POWs forced to dig up the thousands of Jews killed at Babi Yar two years before; the Nazis destroyed the evidence by burning the bodies.]]
Alongside the German Army were special mobile units whose job it was to locate and kill Jews, Gypsies, Soviets commissars, and others deemed unfit in the areas controlled by the army. These ''Einsatzgruppen'' (“special units”) were also aided by local populations who felt the Germans had relieved them of [[Soviet]] occupation as well as sharing a hatred for Jews and other minorities. Making no difference between young or old, male or female, the Einsatzgruppen killed 70,000 Jews at Ponary, near Vilnius, [[Lithuania]]; 33,771 Jews were machine-gunned in a ravine known as Babi Yar near [[Kiev]], [[Ukraine]], between [[September]] 28-29, 1941 [http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/yevtushenko.htm]; 9,000 Jews were killed at the Ninth Fort at Kaunas, Lithuania, on October 28, of which half of the dead were children. On November 30 in the Rumbula Forest outside of Riga, Latvia, between 25,000-28,000 were killed.

By mid-1941, the Ukrainian SSR had the largest population of Jews in Europe. The addition of the eastern provinces of Poland in late 1939 as well as the seizure of sections of Romanian territory in June 1940 led to some 2.7 million Jews living within the borders of the newly enlarged republic. About 85% lived in cities. By 1944, 1.6 million of these Jews had died at the hands of the Germans and their allies and auxiliaries. Unlike the majority of the Holocaust's later victims who died in the industrialized mass murder of the death camps, the overwhelming bulk of Ukraine's Jews died in mass shootings during the initial stages of the war.

The killings were done in first and second waves, with the bodies buried in mass graves. When the Soviets threatened and carried out counter-offensives to reclaim lost territory, special units made up of concentration camp inmates (''sonderkomandos'') would return to the sites, dig up the bodies, and burn them in mass pyres, destroying the evidence of their crimes. The number of individual persons killed by the Einsatzgruppen has been estimated at a bare minimum of one million.

===Stage 5: 1942-44===
Stage 5 began at The [[Wannsee Conference]] in January 1942 began stage five of Nazi power; it was then that when top Nazis decided on a “Final Solution” —to round up and secretly execute all the Jews of Europe. Killing centers were opened in Poland, and thousands of trainloads of Jews were transported there. Jews were gassed immediately upon arrival. Over three million Jews (and numbers of gypsies and other hated groups) were murdered, mostly in 1942–43.
====Wannsee Conference====
On January 20, 1942 at a villa near Berlin named Wannsee a conference was convened by Heydrich to implement methods and ideas for a "final solution to the Jewish question" (''die Endlösung der Judenfrage''). At the conference were fifteen men, among them Heydrich’s head of Jewish affairs, [[Adolf Eichmann]], who would be instrumental in providing the logistical plans for removing the Jews to the camps. The men represented government agencies, such as the Gestapo, the Race and Resettlement Office, the S.S., as well as a representative from the General Government in Poland. As Heydrich himself explained near the beginning of the conference, ideas were in play on relocating Jews:
:''“Another possible solution of the [Jewish] problem has now taken the place of emigration—i.e., evacuation of the Jews to the east…Such activities are, however, to be considered as provisional actions, but practical experience is already being collected which is of greatest importance in relation to the future final solution of the Jewish problem.”''

The minutes of the meeting were kept, but had been edited by Heydrich. The language it contains euphemisms in place of what was really said. ''Evacuation of Jews to the east'' and ''resettlement'' meant relocation to the concentration and extermination camps in Poland; ''special handling'' regarded the killing of Jews, either through slave labor in which the Jew was worked to death, or being killed immediately on arrival. The ''final solution'' was put into practice within a few months of the conference, as the bullets of the machine guns and the exhaust of carbon monoxide were replaced by the more efficient killing methods installed in the first gas chambers.

===Stage 6: 1944-45===
Stage 6 arrived when the Soviet armies overran the Polish camps in 1944–45 and, liberated the survivors.

But the killing continued unabated, even to the last week of the war. As territory was regained by Soviet forces, the death camps were evacuated of survivors and destroyed as much as possible in a futile attempt to hide the evidence. The survivors were moved west into Germany, usually in hellish death marches, and interned in concentration camps where death still awaited them; such killing by the S.S. took priority over military matters at times.
[[Image:Ike at Ordruf.jpg|left|150px|thumb|General Dwight D. Eisenhower saw for himself the carnage wrought by the Nazis when he toured the Ohrdruf concentration camp on April 12, 1945. These prisoners were executed prior to the camp's liberation.]]

In all, six million Jews were murdered; most of the 300,000 survivors emigrated to the United States or Israel.

==The people involved==
Analytically, the people involved in the Holocaust can be divided into the following groups:
===Victims===
Millions were victimized by the Nazi regime during the Holocaust. The Jews were always the principal targets; [[Anne Frank]] in the Netherlands was the most famous victim. However, the Nazis also systematically hunted down and murdered the Roma people (“Gypsies”). They also targeted special enemies, including Communist activists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, and people with disabilities. The last group was the target of euthanasia programs carried out in German hospitals in 1939–1941. Some of these programs were stopped when German Christian leaders mobilized public opinion against them.
===Perpetrators===
Under the guidance of an all-powerful führer (Hitler), the Nazis believed fervently in force, violence, and terror as their best weapons. The most fanatical Nazis joined the [[SS]], which carried out most of the executions. The Final Solution was directed by [[Heinrich Himmler]], commander of the SS and Minister of the Interior. His top aide was [[Reinhard Heydrich]], head of the Gestapo and, after 1939, of all the secret police agencies grouped into the RSHA; he was assassinated by Czech commandos with British help in 1942. [[Adolf Eichmann]] was the senior SS bureaucrat in charge of handling deportation and transportation. However, regular German army police units also systematically killed large numbers of civilians and POWs on the Eastern Front.<ref> After the war, West Germany recognized its guilt and made large financial payments to Israel; Communist East Germany refused to do the same.</ref>

====Endlösung====
[[Image:Heydrich.jpg|right|150px|thumb|''Obergruppenführer'' Reinhard Heydrich, the man who convened the Wannsee Conference with the intention of determining a "final solution to the Jewish question".]]
:''To Gruppenführer Heydrich:''
:''Supplementing the task assigned to you by the decree of January 24, 1939, to solve the Jewish problem by means of emigration and evacuation in the best possible way according to present conditions, I hereby charge you to carry out preparations as regards organizational, financial, and material matters for a total solution (Gesamtlösung) of the Jewish question in all the territories of Europe under German occupation.''
:''Where the competency of other central organizations touches on this matter, these organizations are to collaborate.''
:''I charge you further to submit to me as soon as possible a general plan of the administrative material and financial measures necessary for carrying out the desired final solution (Endlösung) of the Jewish question.'' (Order from Hermann Göring to Reinhard Heydrich, July 31, 1941)

====The death camps====
[[Image:Hgdye56.jpg|right|200px|thumb|''Selektion'' of Hungarian Jews at the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp in May/June 1944. To be sent to the right meant slave labor; to the left, the gas chambers.]]
In the early years of Nazi Germany concentration camps were built with the expressed purpose of housing political prisoners; this was quickly expanded to Jews and other people the Nazis considered undesirable. But by 1942 new camps were built in eastern Poland as death camps; the victims, once targeted by the Einsatzgruppen coming to them, had been rounded up by units of the Army and Waffen S.S., and forced to travel to their own destruction. The victims were packed tightly into cattle cars - so tight in fact that many would die standing up – and transported by rail to the new extermination camps of Chelmno, Treblinka, Sobibor, [[Majdanek]], and Belzec. The camps were essentially factories which specialized in death, making the process from arrival to counting to shower to disposal coldly efficient.

As they arrived the victims were divided in two: those fit for work, usually young to middle aged men, or possessed a special skill needed in the camp, and the remainder sent for delousing in the showers. Deceived to the end, the “showers” was actually a sealed room in which a chemical tablet known as “[[Zyklon B]]” was dropped through a hole in the ceiling. The cyanide-based vapors would kill the entire room within minutes; within thirty, the room was emptied by the ''sonderkomandos'', cleaned, and ready for another group of victims.

The "Operation Reinhardt" camps (Chelmno, Sobibor, Majdanek and Belzec, used a different execution method; the gas chambers were pumped full of carbon monoxide generated by gasoline engines from captured Soviet tanks. At tehse camps all arrivals were gassed, as the camps were pure extermination facilities with no attached work camps.

Of the death camps, the one at Osweicim, Poland - Auschwitz - was perhaps the most notorious. Auschwitz was three camps: a prisoner-of-war camp (Auschwitz I), a slave-labour camp (Auschwitz III–Buna-Monowitz) and the extermination camp (Auschwitz II–Birkenau). The arrivals would disembark the trains at Auschwitz II, where the old, handicapped, infirm, sick, and pregnant women would face a German doctor (among them the notorious [[Joseph Mengele]]) in the ''selektion'', where a flick of a thumb could mean the difference between slave labor in the nearby factory run by I.G. Farben (which took advantage of the forced labor by investing some 700 million Reichsmarks in the project), or to their immediate deaths. Those selected for labor would be worked to death by a combination of hard labor and inadequate food and medical care; a second ''selektion'' of their numbers, if they had survived, would mean a trip to the gas chambers.

===Bystanders===
In recent years much controversy has arisen over when President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] learned what about the Nazis, and what he did or did not do. Switzerland was neutral and accepted in some refugees, but it also made large profits by trading and banking with Germany. The Swiss were forced in the 1990s to make reparation payments.

===Collaborators===
In rounding up Jews the Nazis sometimes had the enthusiastic cooperation of pro-Nazi governments (as in France and Slovakia). A few countries, including Italy and Hungary, tried to stall the Nazis, but the Germans took power directly and seized the Jews. Only Bulgaria and Denmark were largely successful in protecting their Jews.
===Resisters===
Resistance took many forms, from individual acts to hundreds of examples of organized, armed resistance. The most famous episode was the month-long uprising of 60,000 remaining Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto in April 1943. At the Sobibor death camp, an uprising in October 1943 allowed 600 prisoners to escape.

Jews stood virtually alone against the Nazi war machine and those who collaborated with them, receiving no aid or assistance from outside, as well as having no access to arms with which to defend themselves. Further, the Nazis took great care to prevent their victims from knowing their true plans right up to the moment of their deaths; at Babi Yar many had believed they were being transported to a “family work camp” right up to the point of standing before their own mass grave. There was also the fear of reprisals against large numbers of Jews within the ghettos, which also prevented resistance. But word of the unbelievable atrocities of the death camps filtered into places like Warsaw, and as the trains were leaving packed with Jews many saw that resistance was preferable to the death that awaited them.

Nine months after the Warsaw deportations had commenced, and after confirmation that their destination was the Treblinka extermination camp, 24-year-old [[Mordecai Anielewicz]] and his Jewish Resistance began the [[Warsaw Ghetto Uprising]] on April 19, 1943, which lasted just over a month.

[[Dietrich Bonhoeffer]] was a Christian pastor and theologian who was opposed to the goings on in Germany. He was involved in the German Resistance and took part in a plan to assassinate Hitler. This led to his capture and eventual execution, under Hitler's order, at Flossenbürg concentration camp on April 9, 1945.

Jews fought alongside partisans elsewhere in France, the Balkans, and Soviet Russia during the last three years of the war. Uprisings also occurred in two of the death camps, Treblinka and Sobibor; the latter was closed as a result and the site razed to hide the evidence.

In a unique case of resistance, the Jews of [[Denmark]] were almost entirely saved by the good will of their neighbors. The Danish government had arranged a system by which they maintained control of the government except for foreign affairs. This allowed the Jews of Denmark to live unmolested for several years. When the Nazis did move to deport the Jews in 1943 the Danish Government resigned in protest. The Danish people began a process of evacuating all of the Jews, en masse, to Sweden. The universities closed so students could assist the evacuation, congregations were urged to help, and the fishing fleets helped to evacuate the Jews by sea. In the end only 500 Danish Jews were captured and placed in Theresienstadt where they remained until the end of the war thanks in part to the continued attentions of the Danish people.<ref>http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/faq/languages/en/04/01/denmark2.php</ref>

===Rescuers===
Rescuers hid potential victims as best they could; the tragic story of [[Anne Frank]] is the most famous. The pope helped protect some Italian Jews; it is still being debated whether or not he could have done much more. The most famous rescuer was Oskar Schindler; —“Schindler’s List” the movie is a tells the true story about of how he saved 1,100 Jews from the Nazis by setting up factories that produced defective munitions.<ref> For further information, see [http://www.teachwithmovies.org/guides/schindlers-list.html] </ref>.

In territory occupied by the Germans the situation was bleak for Jews. Their allies were few and resources were meager. Despite this, many put their lives on the line to provide aid and comfort, as well as putting them in hiding or through a network of underground units to get them to safety. In Poland it was punishable by death to aid Jews, yet a “council for the aid of Jews” known as the Zegota rescued about 5,000 men, women, and children, providing hiding places and forged identity papers. A similar number was hidden by French Huguenots in the little town of Le Chamblon-sur-Lignon.
====Vatican====
Although criticized by many for his silence about the Nazi persecution of the Jews, Pope [[Pius XII]] hid several hundred inside the Vatican, away from Mussolini and German occupiers and quietly worked behind the scenes to do what they could. The Vatican estimates they were able to save upwards of 150,000 Jews during this horrible time. For those who say the Vatican should have done more to save Jews, it should be noted that they weren't even able to stop the killing of Polish Catholics, of whom more than a million lost their lives, so how could they stop the killing of Jews?
====Wallenburg====
Swedish diplomat [[Raoul Wallenburg]], in an attempt to save the last remaining Jews in Hungary, arrived in Budapest on July 9, 1944, and working with neutral diplomats and the Vatican, secured the release of several thousand; his efforts at the rescue of Jews would total well over 100,000 by war’s end, including [[Tom Lantos]], a survivor who became a powerful member of the U.S. Congress.
====Schindler====
A Nazi businessman who took advantage of the slave labor conditions to make a personal profit, [[Oskar Schindler]], would use that profit to bribe camp guards and Nazi officials at the Plazow camp to ensure that the workers he had grown to love and admire would survive the end of the war; among the individuals he played cat and mouse with for their lives was the camp's commandant, Amon Goeth, a sadistic man who shot Jews for target practice from his villa and tortured a captured escapee by shooting the prisoners around him. These men and women, who hid Jews out of a sense of common humanity, would not be forgotten: the state of Israel would recognize them with honorary citizenship several years later.

===Liberators===
The Allies liberated the concentration camps in 1945 — but the question remains as to whether they could have bombed the camps or otherwise stopped the Final Solution.

===Survivors===
The survivors of the Final Solution were very quiet about their experiences until about 1961, when Adolf Eichmann was captured in South America by Israel, tried in Jerusalem, and executed. Since then the Holocaust has become recognized as the most horrible episode of the twentieth20th century, and it has been analyzed in numerous with many books, courses, museums, and movies. The most important museums are Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, the Holocaust Museum in Washington, and the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles.

===Non-Jewish victims===
Jews were not the only victims of Nazi persecution. <ref> It is estimated that around 6 million Jews were killed during the Final Solution, along with as many as another 6 million non-Jews. [http://www.holocaust-history.org/short-essays/heinrich-himmler.shtml] </ref>
Members of unions, members of the Social Democratic Party, and political dissidents were also sent to the camps; indeed they were among the first ones incarcerated immediately following Hitler’s appointment as chancellor. Some 20,000 [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] also were rounded up and sent to the camps, primarily because of refusal to register for the draft, swear allegiance to the state, or give the “Heil Hitler” greeting. [[Homosexual]]s were arrested; they were forced to wear a pink triangle on their prison garments; and sent to the camps. [[Gypsies]] as well were rounded up and imprisoned, and like the Jews, were deliberately marked for killing.

The mentally retarded, the disabled, and the insane were selected for the T-4 Program, which was created in 1939. Dubbed “useless eaters” by S.S. general Ernst Kaltenbrunner, these people were murdered as part of a “euthanasia” campaign, usually by placing them in a special room where a vehicle’s engine provided the carbon monoxide gas that flowed in through a hose in a wall.

Following the outbreak of World War II in [[Poland]], the Nazis killed Polish intelligentsia in territories under their control, politicians, priests, and anyone else deemed part of a Polish leadership; the remainder were deemed slaves to serve their new masters; many were forced to perform hard labor, while many of the children who happened to look Aryan were kidnapped and raised as Germans in German households.

[[Image:Goeth.jpg|right|150px|right|thumb|Amon Goeth, commandant of the Plazow concentration camp near Krakow, Poland. A sadistic man, his recreation was to target and kill individual Jews in the camp with a hunting rifle from the balcony of his villa.]]

==Deaths==
The number of Jews put to death were staggering. Beginning in the summer of 1942 a bare minimum of 960,000 were believed killed at Auschwitz during its three years in operation. At Treblinka, between 750,000-900,000 Jews were killed within 17 months, considering the staff and guards there numbered 120. 600,000 Jews died at Belzac within 10 months by a staff numbering 104. In the eighteen months of its operation, Sobibor killed 250,000.

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="450" style="margin-left:5px"
|-
!colspan="5" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: yellow no-repeat scroll top left;"|Jewish Death Statistics during the Holocaust
|-
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Country
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Prior Jewish Population
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: red no-repeat scroll top left;"|Estimated Number Killed
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Percentage of Total
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: tan no-repeat scroll top left;"|Estimated Number of Survivors
|-
|'''Poland'''
|3,300,000
|'''3,000,000'''
|91%
|300,000
|-
|'''Germany'''
|566,000
|'''200,000'''
|36%
|366,000
|-
|'''USSR'''
|3,020,000
|'''1,100,000'''
|36%
|1,920,000
|-
|'''Hungary'''
|800,000
|'''596,000'''
|74%
|204,000
|-
|'''Lithuania'''
|168,000
|'''143,000'''
|85%
|25,000
|-
|'''Estonia'''
|4,500
|'''2,000'''
|44%
|2,500
|-
|'''Latvia'''
|95,000
|'''80,000'''
|84%
|15,000
|-
|'''France'''
|350,000
|'''77,320'''
|22%
|272,680
|-
|'''Austria'''
|185,000
|'''65,000'''
|35%
|120,000
|-
|'''Netherlands'''
|140,000
|'''100,000'''
|71%
|40,000
|-
|'''Belgium'''
|65,700
|'''28,900'''
|45%
|36,800
|-
|'''Romania'''
|342,000
|'''287,000'''
|84%
|55,000
|-
|'''Bohemia Moravia'''
|118,310
|'''71,150'''
|60%
|47,160
|-
|'''Greece'''
|77,380
|'''67,000'''
|87%
|10,380
|-
|'''Czechoslovakia'''
|88,950
|'''71,000'''
|80%
|17,950
|-
|'''Yugoslavia'''
|78,000
|'''63,300'''
|81%
|14,700
|-
|'''Italy'''
|44,500
|'''7,680'''
|17%
|36,820
|-
|'''Bulgaria'''
|50,000
|'''0'''
|0%
|50,000
|-
|'''Denmark'''
|7,800
|'''60'''
|.8%
|7,740
|-
|'''Finland'''
|2,000
|'''7'''
|.03%
|1,993
|-
|'''Norway'''
|1,700
|'''762'''
|45%
|938
|-
|'''TOTAL'''
|'''9,508,340'''
|'''5,962,129'''
|'''63%'''
|'''3,546,211'''
|
|}

==Survivors==
More than nine million people were discovered by the [[Allies]] to have been displaced throughout the European Theater of the war; of these, six million were returned to their native lands. One million refused, citing either a fear of communist persecution or a fear of being discovered to have collaborated with the enemy. The remainder, more than three and a half million Jews, had nothing. For these survivors, life after the war meant searching for loved ones, as well as recovering from the severe effects of malnutrition and disease at the hands of the Nazis.

As to the future of finding homes for the surviving Jews, that was solved in part by both covert and well-publicized efforts to pressure [[Great Britain]] into relinquishing control of [[Palestine]] for the purpose of a Jewish homeland, as well as the relaxing of American immigration laws in 1948 which allowed a large influx of Jewish refugees. So shocking was the Holocaust to the Jewish mindset that it caused a determination of survivors to speed the creation of the State of [[Israel]] in May, 1948, vowing that a repeat of the Holocaust, as well as previous pogroms against the Jews in the past, would not happen again. Since 1948, Israel has fought in four major wars against their neighbors bent on eradicating it, and each time Israel has emerged victorious.

The Allies were just as shocked over the conditions which prevailed at the Nazi death camps, and set up military tribunals as a result. The most famous was the [[Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal|Nürnberg Trials]], taking place 1945-1946 near the site of the Nazi mass rallies. For the first time in history, an international tribunal would try the 22 major living Nazis for crimes against humanity; all but one would be found guilty, and more than half would suffer death by hanging.
==Punishment==
Hitler and Goebbels committed suicide as the Russians were capturing Berlin. Himmler was captured in 1945 and committed suicide before his war crimes trial began. The main war criminals were tried at the International War Crimes Tribunals at Nuremburg in 1945–1947, and at smaller trials throughout Europe. The Holocaust was mentioned at the trials, but the major allegation against defendants was the systematic planning of an unjust war.<ref> The Far East War Crimes Trials were held from 1946 to 1948, and resulted in the conviction of 25 Japanese generals and high officials accused of crimes against peace. Over 2,000 local and regional trials convicted 4,000 Japanese officers accused of mistreating prisoners and civilians.</ref> Many Nazis fled justice, reaching Argentina or other dispant locations. [[Adolf Eichmann]], a chief architect of the Holocaust, was captured while hiding in Argentina under an assumed name, brought to Israel, and put on trial in 1961. He was found guilty, and suffered the first and only death penalty carried out in Israel’s history. Other Nazis would eventually be brought to trial: [[Klaus Barbie]], the “Butcher of Lyon”, was tried in France in 1987, as well as [[Maurice Papon]] a decade later for collaborating with the Nazis. These trials brought to new generations an awareness of the Holocaust.

==Etymology==
The word '''Holocaust''' comes from the Greek word ''holokaustos'' (''holos'': complete, and ''kaustos'': a sacrificial or burnt offering to a god); the [[Hebrew]] words ''Sho'ah'' (Catastrophe) and ''Hurban'' (destruction)<ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/269548/Holocaust</ref> were also used, and and survivors have used both to refer to what seemed to be the complete and utter destruction of the Jewish people at the hands of the Nazis, specifically in the crematoria of the [[concentration camps|extermination camps]] built for that purpose. Many victims have taken offense to the term '''Holocaust''' because of the meaning of the word. The term ''Sho'ah'' has become the preferred term in some parts of the world<ref>http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/resource_center/the_holocaust.asp</ref>

==Books and film==
*''[[Schindler's List]]''

==See also==
[[Image:Lovis Corinth Römische Campagna.jpg|thumb|Römische Campagna by Lovis Corinth; returned to the heirs of a Jew in 2007.]]
* [[Holocaust denial]]
*[[Holocaust Memorial Day]]
*[[Kindertransport]]
* [[History of Poland]]
* [[Bergen-Belsen]], one of the main killing camps
* [[Heinrich Himmler]], in charge of the [[SS]]
* [[SS]], in charge of the killing

==External links==
:[http://www.h-net.org/~holoweb/ H-HOLOCAUST], daily discussion group, edited by scholars; numerous book reviews and reports on current scholarship
:[http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/ Holocaust Encyclopedia]
:[http://www.ushmm.org/ United States Holocaust Memorial Museum] in Washington, D.C.
:[http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/yevtushenko.htm ''Babi Yar'', poem by Yevgeni Yevtushenko]
:[http://www.hmh.org/ Houston Holocaust Museum]
:[http://www.flholocaustmuseum.org/ Florida Holocaust Museum]
:[http://www.va-holocaust.com/ Virginia Holocaust Museum]
:[http://holocausteducationcenter.org/ Holocaust Awareness Museum & Educational Center of Philadelphia; America's First Holocaust Museum]
:[http://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/Nuremberg/Nuremberg.html#search Searchable list of 2300 victims from Nuremberg]
:[http://www.holocaustcentre.net/ Beth Shalom Holocaust Centre in Newark, England]
:[http://www.mhmc.ca/ Montreal Holocaust Memorial Center Museum]
:[http://www.holocaust-mahnmal.de/en German Government's Memorial To Jews Murdered During Holocaust]
:[http://www.amcha.org/ AMCHA: Israeli Association of Holocaust Survivors]
:[http://www.hitler.org/writings/first_writing/ Hitler's first writing about Jewry.] On 16 September, 1919.
{{Clear}}

====Notes====
<references/>

==Bibliography==
===Surveys and victims===
* Bloxham, Donald and Kushner, Tony. ''The Holocaust: Critical Historical Approaches.'' (2005). 238 pp.
* Brandon, Ray, and Wendy Lower, eds. ''The Shoah in Ukraine: History, Testimony, Memorialization.'' (2008). 378 pp. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=24078 online review]
* Dawidowicz, Lucy. ''The War Against the Jews, 1933–1945'' (1986)
** '' Hitler's War Against the Jews: A Young Reader's Version of the War Against the Jews, 1933-1945, by Lucy S. Dawidowicz'' (1978) [http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-War-Against-Jews-Dawidowicz/dp/0874412226/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979155&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Edelheit, Abraham et al. ''History Of The Holocaust: A Handbook and Dictionary'' (1995) 544pp, a standard reference work [http://www.questia.com/read/9134049?title=History%20of%20the%20Holocaust%3a%20A%20Handbook%20and%20Dictionary online edition]
* Friedlander, Saul. ''Nazi Germany and the Jews: 1933-1945'' (2009) abridged version of standard 2 volume history:
** Friedlander, Saul. ''The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945'' (2007), the standard scholarly history [http://www.amazon.com/Years-Extermination-Nazi-Germany-1939-1945/dp/0060190434/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979435&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
** Friedlander, Saul. ''The Years of Persecution:1933-1939'' (1998)
* Friedman, Saul S. ''A History of the Holocaust.'' (2004). 494 pp.
* Gilbert, Martin. ''Never Again: The History of the Holocaust'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Never-Again-Holocaust-Martin-Gilbert/dp/0789304090/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979238&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Gilbert, Martin. ''The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe During the Second World War'' (1987) [http://www.amazon.com/Holocaust-History-Europe-During-Second/dp/0805003487/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979238&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Gilbert, Martin. ''The Routledge Atlas of the Holocaust'' (2002)[http://www.amazon.com/Routledge-Atlas-Holocaust-Historical-Atlases/dp/0415281466/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979238&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* Gutman, Israel. ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Holocaust'' (4 vol 1990), a standard reference work
* Lacqueur, Walter, ed. ''The Holocaust Encyclopedia'' (2001).
* Landau, Ronnie. ''The Nazi Holocaust'' (2002)
* Marrus, Michael A. ''The Holocaust in History'' (1989)
* Niewyk, Donald, and Francis Nicosia. ''The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust.'' (2000) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99854126&oplinknum=4 online edition]; [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=289191002135231 online review]
* Rosen, Philip. ''Dictionary of the Holocaust: Biography, Geography and Terminology.'' (1997)
* Rothkirchen, Livia. ''The Jews of Bohemia and Moravia: Facing the Holocaust.'' (2006). 447 pp.
* Spector, Shmuel ed., ''The Encyclopedia of Jewish Life: Before and During the Holocaust'' (2001).
* Yahil, Leni. ''The Holocaust: The Fate of European Jewry'', (1990).

===Perpetrators===
* Browning, Christopher. ''Nazi Policy, Jewish Workers, German Killers'' (2000)
* Burleigh, Michael. ''The Third Reich: A New History.'' 2000. 864 pp., stresses central role of antisemitism.
* Dawidowicz, Lucy. ''The War Against the Jews, 1933–1945'' (1986)
* Friedlander, Henry. ''The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution.'' (1995) 445 pp. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=2249957902770 online review];[http://www.questia.com/read/9253469?title=The%20Origins%20of%20Nazi%20Genocide%3a%20From%20Euthanasia%20to%20the%20Final%20Solution online edition]
* Friedlander, Saul. ''Nazi Germany and the Jews: Volume 1: The Years of Persecution 1933-1939'' (1998)), the standard scholarly history
* Friedlander, Saul. ''The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945'' (2007), the standard scholarly history [http://www.amazon.com/Years-Extermination-Nazi-Germany-1939-1945/dp/0060190434/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979435&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Gaunt, David; Levine, Paul A.; and Palosuo, Laura, eds. ''Collaboration and Resistance during the Holocaust: Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.'' (2004). 519 pp.
* Goldhagen, Daniel Joseph. ''Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust'' (1997).
* Graml, Hermann. ''Antisemitism in the Third Reich'' (1992).
* Gutman, Israel, ed. ''Encyclopedia of the Holocaust,'' 4 vol (1989)
* Johnson, Eric A. ''Nazi Terror: The Gestapo, Jews, and Ordinary Germans'' (2000). [http://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Terror-Gestapo-Ordinary-Germans/dp/0465049087/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979435&sr=8-13 excerpt and text search]
* Lewy, Guenter. ''The Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies'' (2001). [http://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Persecution-Gypsies-Guenter-Lewy/dp/0195142403/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979549&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Levy, Richard, ed. ''Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution'' (2005)
* Lower, Wendy. ''Nazi Empire-Building and the Holocaust in Ukraine.'' (2005). 307 pp.
* Wachsmann, Nikolaus. "Looking into the Abyss: Historians and the Nazi Concentration Camps," ''European History Quarterly,'' 4 2006; vol. 36: pp. 247 - 278. fulltext in Sage; historiography
* Wistrich, Robert S. ''Hitler and the Holocaust.'' (2001). 295 pp.

===Memory===
* Bartov, Omer. ''Mirrors of Destruction: War, Genocide and Modern Identity.'' (2000). 310 pp. ISBN 978-0-19-507723-0. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=23289980364228 online review]; [http://www.amazon.com/Mirrors-Destruction-Genocide-Modern-Identity/dp/0195151844/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979627&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Bloxham, Donald. ''Genocide on Trial: War Crimes Trials and the Formation of Holocaust History and Memory.'' (2001) 292pp ISBN 978-0-19-820872-3. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=122091071198412 online review]
* Carrier, Peter. ''Holocaust Monuments and National Memory Cultures in France and Germany since 1989: The Origins and Political Function of the Véd'Hiv' in Paris and the Holocaust Monument in Berlin.'' (2005) 267 pp.
* Douglas, Lawrence. ''The Memory of Judgment: The Memory of Judgment: Making Law and History in the Trials of the Holocaust'' (2000) [http://books.google.com/books?id=hiU2C0maeAMC&pg=PP1&dq=intitle:The+intitle:Memory+intitle:of+intitle:Judgment+inauthor:douglas&num=30&as_brr=0&sig=MiETAxY1KKnru9emnC0x3IXWJIE excerpt and text search]
* Greenspan, Henry. ''On Listening to Holocaust Survivors: Recounting and Life History.'' (1998) 220 pp. ISBN 978-0-275-95718-6. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=3035937424750 online review]
* Haggith, Tony and Newman, Joanna, ed. ''Holocaust and the Moving Image: Representations in Film and Television.'' 2005. 317 pp.
* Mikhman, Dan. ''Holocaust Historiography: A Jewish Perspective: Conceptualizations, Terminology, Approaches, and Fundamental Issues'' (2003)
* Roseman, Mark. ''A Past in Hiding: Memory and Survival in Nazi Germany'' (2001). [http://www.amazon.com/Past-Hiding-Memory-Survival-Germany/dp/031242065X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979685&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Rosen, Philip. and Nina Apfelbaum. ''Bearing Witness: A Resource Guide to Literature, Poetry, Art, Music, and Videos by Holocaust Victims and Survivors'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Bearing-Witness-Literature-Holocaust-Survivors/dp/0313310769/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195980447&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Stone, Dan, ed. ''The Historiography of the Holocaust.'' (2004). 573 pp
* Waxman, Zoe Vania. ''Writing the Holocaust: Identity, Testimony, Representation'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Holocaust-Representation-Historical-Monographs/dp/0199206384/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195981167&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Wiesel, Elie, and Robert Franciosi. ''Elie Wiesel: Conversations'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Elie-Wiesel-Conversations-Literary/dp/1578065038/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979990&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Weisel, Elie. ''Night'' (1999).

===Reactions and memory in U.S.===
* Abzug, Robert H. ed. ''America Views the Holocaust, 1933-1945: A Brief Documentary History'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/America-Views-Holocaust-1933-1945-Documentary/dp/0312218192/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195981035&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]
* Lipstadt, Deborah E. ''Beyond Belief: The American Press and the Coming of the Holocaust, 1933–1945'' (1993). [http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Belief-American-Coming-Holocaust/dp/0029191610/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979711&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Newton, Verne W., ed. ''FDR and the Holocaust'' (1996). [http://www.amazon.com/Holocaust-Franklin-Roosevelt-Institute-Diplomatic/dp/0312122268/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979739&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Novick, Peter. ''The Holocaust in American Life'' (1999). [http://www.amazon.com/Holocaust-American-Life-Peter-Novick/dp/0618082328/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979766&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Wyman, David. ''The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941–1945.'' (1984). [http://www.amazon.com/Abandonment-Jews-America-Holocaust-1941-1945/dp/159558174X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979795&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]

===Primary sources===
* Aroneanu, Eugene and Thomas Whissen, eds. ''Inside the Concentration Camps: Eyewitness Accounts of Life in Hitler's Death Camps'' (1996) 176 pp, [http://www.questia.com/read/26185130?title=Inside%20the%20Concentration%20Camps%3a%20Eyewitness%20Accounts%20of%20Life%20in%20Hitler's%20Death%20Camps online edition]
* Greene, Joshua M, and Shiva Kumar, eds. ''Witness: Voices from the Holocaust'' (2000). [http://www.amazon.com/WITNESS-Holocaust-Joshua-M-Greene/dp/0684865262/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979830&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Klemperer, Victor. ''I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years 1942–1945'' (2001). [http://www.amazon.com/Will-Bear-Witness-1942-1945-Diary/dp/0375756973/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979856&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search vol 2]
* Kremer, S. Lillian, ed. ''Holocaust Literature: An Encyclopedia of Writers and Their Work'' (2002).
* Siedlecki, Janusz Nel, et als. ''We Were in Auschwitz'' (2000).
* Szpilman, Wladyslaw. ''The Pianist'' (2000). [http://www.amazon.com/Pianist-Read-Great-Movie/dp/0752864297/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195979914&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]

==International Justice==

* Pritchard, R. John, “War Crimes, International Criminal Law, and the Postwar Trials in Europe and Asia.,” Iin Loyd E. Lee ed., ''World War II in Asia and the Pacific and the War’s Aftermath, with General Themes,'' edited by Loyd E. Lee (19987).

===Video===
* “Schindler’s List” (DVD and VHS) (1993).
* [http://college.usc.edu/vhi/ USC Shoah Foundation], largest video archive of testimonies of Holocaust survivors and witnesses,

[[category:European History]]
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Genocide]]
[[Category:Holocaust| ]]
[[Category:Nazis]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-03T17:45:10Z

ClearView2011: /* Deleted example to releativity */