Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Big Bang theory

2012-10-18T23:17:05Z

Horace3: /* Introductory sentence */ new section

It looks like this page may have to be protected, since evolutionists are getting on here and posting nonsense such as YEC being "non-scientific". [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:39, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::The only nonsense involves the religious thinking there is "proof" of YEC. Really? An article on the big bang contains one scientific paragraph and a longer one about creationist views? How does one explain cosmic background radiation? Or Hubble's Law? Or Deuterium Observation? Or the fact that if you use the big imaging telescopes to look beyond 14 billion light years in any direction all you see is, well, big bang? Inasmuch proof as science allows (remember, science can't "prove" anything, it can only disprove the false in order to make a better hypothesis) the Big Bang is accepted fact. In what peer-reviewed journal did Matthew, Mark, Luke or John publish? [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:46 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Feel free to expand the article if you wish. I might even join you. But you can do that without removing the creationist material. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What I'm saying is, that material is fine--provided one acknowledges that the opinion of creationists, ESPECIALLY YEC's--is viewed in the scientific community as belonging to the lunatic fringe. One can be socially and politically conservative without making oneself look like idiot by espousing such nonsense as YEC. Science shouldn't be politicized--far too many things already are!! Scientific method should have nothing to with ideology; it should have everything to do with coming up with better hypotheses about the universe based on empirical observations. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:56 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::There, finally finished typing it in Word. This works so much better, although feel free to add to its information. Quite frankly, its absurd to believe in YEC--and I'm a committed social, political and economic conservative!! Please don't associate lunatics with conservatives, because it hurts our credibility. In the 1800s, the Comte de Buffon took composite lumps of molten rock of varying sizes and estimated (based on how long it took his samples to cool to room temperature) that a molten ball the size of Earth would've taken at least 35,000 years just to cool. YEC is idiotic, and those who believe it are blinded by their own ignorance of basic physics. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:42 PM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm confused, Scorpionman. Are you saying that YEC is scientific?
:Personally, I don't see why a discussion of Biblical literalism has any place in an article about the Big Bang. If you want to dispute the current prevailing theory behind the origin of the cosmos, then you should do it scientific evidence or at the very least an attempt at refuting evidence presented for the theory and not with the contents of one religious text. As it is, the article abruptly changes the subject and goes totally off-topic. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 13:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Please update the article to include peer-reviewed scientific criticisms of Big Bang-like theories. Right now the article looks ridiculous: a half of a dozen scientific references followed by a bunch of references dominated by the Apologetic Press. Clearly somebody misunderstands the modern scientific process.

==Evolution and the Big Bang Theory==
You guys state: "Some creationists argue that the Big Bang theory is part of an effort to deny God's creation of all of existence. Christian physicists, such as Dr. John Hartnett,[12] have claimed that the Big Bang theory was constructed to account for serious pitfalls to the theory of evolution, particularly the needed timescale of billions of years, amply contradicted by terrestrial and astronomical evidence. Thus, the big bang is trotted out by atheist evolutionists to silence creationist opponents."

Sigh...I could be wrong, but wasn't the earth known to be billions of years old by then? And the view back then was that the Universe is static and that it had been around forever. Einstein actually inserted <math> \Lambda g^{ \mu \nu} </math> into the left hand side of his equation <math> \mathbf{G}= 8\pi \mathbf{T} </math> (geometrized units) so that he would get a static universe! So the big bang model proposes that the Universe is younger than previously thought, not older! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:15, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

== Dominant theory ==

Would it ruffle too many feathers to mention that it is the dominant theory amongst scientists today. I suggest that such a statement is an uncontroversial fact. Thoughts? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:No, I agree, it is the dominant theory among scientists. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 05:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sweeping generalisation ==

The following sentence should be removed:

:In contrast to young earth creationists, Old Earth Creationists and Theistic evolutionists agree that the Big Bang occured.

Just because you are an OEC or you believe evolution to be correct does not mean that you MUST believe in the Big Bang Theory. Does anyone remember Fred Hoyle?

Are there any objections to the removal of the sentence? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I think this article looks good right now. Good edits guys. Hopefully expressing positive emotions is not violative of probation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article split==

The intro confuses [[Big Bang]] with [[Expanding universe]]. I'd like to split the article up, with one short article treating each of these two distinct ideas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:In fairness, no, an expanding universe is part of the "big bang" (which refers to far more than the universes creation. It's confusing, so I would leave it to someone with a background in physics. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:39, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Have the bounds of [[outer space]] expanded? Or is it just that the galaxies have been getting farther apart within boundless space? What exactly does the theory state? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Apparently, the answer is "both", at least according to http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX --[[User:M|M]] 10:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's try to get this straight. Is [[outer space]] infinite or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:From what I understand most astrophysics believe that since the area that the universe is expanding into is void of matter and energy that yes currently, [[outer space]] is infinite.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Unknown. The spatial extent of the Universe could be finite or infinite. If you're picturing a lump of matter dispersing in a larger void, you're thinking of the wrong thing, though. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:Again, I'm pretty much an amateur when it comes to astrophysics...but I think that the confusion comes from the fact that we're currently uncertain as to the actual curvature of space. I think I remember hearing that space seems to be curved enough that it's actually finite (though boundless, like the three-dimensional equivalent of the surface of a sphere), but I can't provide citation of that at the moment.--[[User:M|M]] 07:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think a split is neccesary, however, on a related note, an article describing the Big Freeze, Big Rip, and Big Crunch theories for the end of the universe might be called for, as those also center on the way in which the universe is expanding (specifically, from measurements of type 1 supernovae in extremely distant galaxies, we have evidence that the universe's expansion is in fact, speeding up, giving support to the Big Freeze (everything expands until entropy is at a maximum), or possibly Big Rip (if Dark Energy is the cause of expansion, then if the universe keeps expanding, dark energy could start to rip apart galaxies, then solar systems, then stars and planets, and finally atoms). So yeah, an article on the possible ways the universe will 'end' (or if it is infinite) would probably help provide more information about the nature of the expanding universe, without having to create an article solely about the expansion of the universe. [[User:Warhawk|Warhawk]] 14:07, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== YEC Citations ==

Conservative, your citations don't appear to agree with each other...compare:
<blockquote>
A prediction had been made prior to the discovery, that if the Big Bang were true, there should be some sort of constant radiation in space, although the prediction was for a temperature several times higher. (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30)
</blockquote>

with

<blockquote>
All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.
</blockquote>

Is it standard procedure to use citations which don't agree with each other on the particulars?

:::Is it standard procedure to give me two citations without giving me the specific cite to the second citation? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I found the second citation and it appears to use the following to support its contention: “The big bang made no quantitative prediction that the ‘background’ radiation would have a temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin (in fact its initial prediction [by George Gamow in 1946] was 30 degrees Kelvin); whereas Eddington in 1926 had already calculated that the ‘temperature of space’ produced by the radiation of starlight would be found to be 3 degrees Kelvin.” Tom Van Flandern, “Did the Universe Have a Beginning?” Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 3, 15 September 1994, p. 33. [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html][http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes55.html#wp1077943] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::It's a good thing Tom Van Flandern didn't publish in peer-reviewed journals. I'll believe your numbers, but current data indicates that BOTH were wrong. Redoing a computation of the ambient temperature of the Universe (given modern observations) will ''not'' yield Eddington's prediction; reworking Gamow's calculation ''will'' reproduce the CMB temperature very accurately. Additionally, the CMB data is more than just temperature data; the anisotropies in the CMB are also indicative of the premordial expansion. Just because you can dig up a citation doesn't mean it's correct.

== Common Misconceptions ==

As previously written, this was untrue. The Big Bang does not claim that all matter was tightly packed together before the Big Bang started. That is an assumption that the Big Bang does not address. It is unfortunate that in a section titled common misconceptions that a misconception was added. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:08, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

==Misconception about Evolution==
I think evolution discredits itself. But I think it is unfortunate when us anti-evolutionist mistrepresent the theory. It is discreditable on many points, but this sentence mistrepresents it:

:''Many scientists who believe in the Big Bang Theory are Evolutionists, though not all are. One can believe that God both created the Universe AND laid out the plan for all life in the Big Bang, as opposed to the idea that life evolved randomly after the Big Bang. ''

Evolution does not say life evolved randomly. It says the intitial organism came about through essentially "random" events. (although not strictly random).

Evolution is wrong for other reasons. And if we are going to make evolutionists see its falsity, we have to correctly represent the theory. Or atleast not MISREPRESENT the theory. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 00:00, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

I agree and I'm glad that the article at least makes that distinction, although as an a Creationist who believes the Big Bang is one of the strongest theistic arguments out there, I'm not incredibly happy about Evolution being mentioned in there; one has nothing to do with the other. However, I won't press the issue because I think what's there is a reasonable compromise. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:23, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
==Big Bang proves Universe had a beginning==
Why are so many creationists against the big bang, it proves that the universe had a beginning point. It also seems to violate physics because matter can't be created from nothing. It indicates a creative force behind the universe.

:Well, for one thing the "billions of years" makes it just laughable, but more importantly it goes against the Bible which says God created the Earth in 6 days around 6000 years ago. --[[User:Rolloffle|Rolloffle]] 15:43, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::Where, exactly, is the age of the Earth specified as being 6000 years in the Bible. Please reference the relevant chapters and verses. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 11:38, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

::"'Billions of years' makes it just laughable." The good old argument from ridiculity. It's like the argument from incredulity, but more fun.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 12:10, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

==Most atheists?==
Does anyone have ANY reference that backs up the claim about "most atheists"? Or is it just made up off the top of people's heads?
: The scientific community (which I define as the doctorate-level degree holding scientists) in the U.S. overwhelmingly accept the Big Bang and old universe. I think most atheists just believe what scientists say is right despite the fact they don't know anything about it. I don't have a source for the U.S. public relating atheism to big bang belief, but I have a source for correlation between scientists' atheism and big bang belief, which we could extrapolate from. [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html From Nature magazine]. --[[User:Theonlyconservative|Theonlyconservative]] 12:38, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Article Depth ==

In all honesty, this article does not tell anyone very much about the big bang theory, evidence for it, or the reasons why it was formulated in the first place. The article basically introduces the topic with a mish mash of unrelated facts in no particular order, then the next section is "dissent letter" followed by "starlight problem". These are hardly the most relevant topics about the Big Bang theory. May I suggest that as this article is (hopefully) reworked, those doing the writing keep in mind that the Big Bang Theory is a very general class of theories that all have one thing in common - the assertion that long ago the universe "began" from a mathematical singularity and has been increasing in size ever since. Also, be wary about the throwing around the word "singularity" - contrary to popular belief and science fiction, a singularity is not a physical thing - it is an asymptotic point in a mathematical function where the function breaks down and can no longer make any predictions. Other singularities include the center of black holes, and objects traveling at the speed of light. The mathematical models for these systems break down at these values and become meaningless. Likewise, the Big Bang Theory has nothing to say about the origin of the singularity or what came "before" it. It is outside the realm of the theory, and in the opinion of some scientist (I'm not comfortable saying most or few here, as I'm basing this statement only on my personal discussions) outside the realm of science as a whole.

== Georges-Henri Lemaître ==

Could somebody add something in about how Roman Catholic priest [[Georges-Henri Lemaître]], the original proposer of the Big Bang theory, felt that the theory fitted beautifully with his faith as it supports a "creation event"? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:51, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Change "Starlight problem" to "Horizon problem"? ==

There's a section in this article that refers to the "starlight problem" but I believe scientists actually refer to this issue as the "horizon problem." See [http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/HorizonProblem.html here] and [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/astro/cosmo.html#c5 here] for example. One reason is that the problem has to do with more than starlight--there are questions about density, temperature, etc. The term "starlight problem" is generally used by people discussing creationist cosmological models, while "horizon problem" is more appropriate in the context of the big bang model.--[[User:JamesR|JamesR]] 20:07, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
: I've changed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:27, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== Inflation and YEC ==

Couldn't inflation make the Big Bang and YEC compatible? I mean if it happened faster than the speed of light. Then why couldn't it happen in the YEC time scale? [[jfraatz|jfraatz]]

== "God's Role" ==

Can someone help me come up with a better way of saying "God's role in creating the universe." ? Obviously God didn't just have a 'role,' He simply created it by Himself! Thanks! [[User:WillS|WillS]] 18:16, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:I tried; do you think my wording is OK? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 03:06, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

::Looks great. And good job catching some other areas where liberal bias crept in as well!

== Correcting "scientific" ==

I just corrected "scientific" the word used in description of the Big Bang to the proper in this case term "pseudo scientific". See also my [[Essay:Demystified gravitation]] where I explain why the Big Bang is a pseudo scientific hypothesis (between other things it assumes "curved" spacetime for which there is no evidence and a lot of to contrary) and how Einsteinian gravitation works. The essay is still not finished and so I invite anybody to expres their opinion on the talk page of the essay. Thanks. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 17:35, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I have already expressed my opinion on the talk page of that essay: you're a crackpot. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:02, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::Sam, the fact that I'm a crackpot has certain influence on my credibility (which I never claimed being high, while I'm only a sculptor, with only one year training in general realativity, and the rest of my formal education being in electrical engineeiring) but it surely has no influence on the truth of Big Bang hypothesis (BBH).

::The biggest flaw of BBH is an assumption that the universe is expanding while it is not.

::This error of expansion of universe was created many years ago by [[relativists]] giving up the checking what is the ''[[intrinsic redshift]]'' in the universe before jumping to conclusion that the ''redshift is a '''proof''' that the universe is expanding''. It is clearly a non scientific approach to science. There are no proofs in science (except in math, and that's why math is not considered to be science). There are only better or worse ''hypotheses'' that are surely no proof. Some last long time until they collapse when a '''proof of their invalidity''' turns up and usually it is not accepted since no scientist cares about looking like an idiot who overlooke something important and assumed an impossible. Error that Newton avoided, not believeing in his own theory being more than just math.

::[[Intrinsic redshift]] is as it is observed in our universe (see my step-by-step derivation in [[Essay:Demystified gravitation]] and please comment on possible errors in this derivation). My derivation is done in such a simple way that an intelligent high school student shouldn't have problems with repeating it him/herself. Besides I'm here to explain if something is too difficult. Just ask a question about this derivation or other things since from 1985, when I discovered this derivation, I found out also many other thing. E.g. why the universe is looking as if it were expanding with accelerating expansion and the acceleration has just its value, observed with accuracy of only one standard deviation (max possible) by Supernova Cosmology Project team in 1998, which is

:::<math>dH/dt=-H_o^2/2</math>

::where <math>dH/dt</math> is acceleration of expansion in terms of derivation of Hubble constant with respect to time <math>t</math>, and <math>H_o</math> is the Hubble constant itself. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 16:44, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

== "even though the theory is based on little more than guesswork, speculation, and dubious assumptions." ==

I must agree with the removal of the above sentence. The big bang theory is based on the observations of red shifts, background radiation and other observational and physical properties of the universe. However, it is the assumptions the Big Bang theorists draw from this that are the debatable part. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:51, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks Max. I don't accept the Big Bang theory myself, but only on the grounds of my faith. The error - and I think it's a sincere one - that astrophysicists are making is in the use of methodological naturalism, which of course is a requirement of the scientific method. Within the constraints of that method it's a very sound theory; it just isn't correct. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:01, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::Yes Sam, ''"it just isn't correct"''. But can we say it while [[relativists]] maintain that it is correct? We have to have a proof that it isn't correct.

::I don't blame Max for him doing what he had to do not knowing such a proof. I just would like to start a discussion whether my proof is sound one, and justifying dumping BBH. I'm sure it is but I'm the author so I may be biased (though I took a general realtivity course at Harvard to be sure that I'm right and thought about this for over quater of a century so I'm relatively sure that it is a sound proof of invalidity of BBH).

::Anyway, I can only help in discussion by keeping it on track when I see wrong arguments, and without anybody discussing this issue it won't be even known that the proof of invalidity of BBH even exists. No mainstream scientific journal ever wanted to publish this proof despite it is only one page of print. It was published in conservapedia (after being blocked on my university server) as [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]] in a short form suitable for physicists. Longer form with step-by-step derivation of redshift in our universe, and more, is in [[Essay:Demystified gravitation]]. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 17:25, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

::Just as a note, Sam, the Scientific Theory (i.e. Scientific Method) was codified by two individuals that were deeply religious (Descartes and Francis Bacon). It is also derived from the theories of logic codified by Roger Bacon, a monk. I don't think it is a difference between faith and reason. St. Thomas Aquinas made the argument that we should seek to combine the two, which John Calvin said was a very important advancement that allowed us to move beyond Greek philosophy/science. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 19:00, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:::It's irrelevant that Descartes and the Bacons were religious; the scientific method does NOT combine faith and reason and in fact explicitly rejects faith. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 15:14, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Additional note, Sam, what good it would do if we believed in things that are not true? As pseudo scientific theories usually are. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 14:29, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::::It's interesting to our readers that the founders of the [[scientific method]] were religious. We always want to know more about people who have influenced currents of modern thought.

::::When someone proposes "[[intelligent design]]", do we respond to the challenge of the idea purely on its merits, or do we consider the motives of its proponents? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:32, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Hmm ==

As a Catholic, I hope people realize that the Catholic Church was involved in the matter. The Catholic Church is home to one of the most conservative Christian organizations in the US, the Knights of Columbus (1.8 million members), mind you. I do hope that we can at least acknowledge that this isn't an "atheist" view or a "liberal" view, but one that spreads across boundaries. :) After all, the Catholic Church's view about Genesis is based on St. Augustine's determination that Genesis was allegorical, which was something both Martin Luther and John Calvin agreed with. Just keep this in mind. :) [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 18:56, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:In what sense ''"the Catholic Church was involved in the matter"''? The fact that ''"Martin Luther and John Calvin agreed (that Genesis was allegorical)"'' isn't a clear indication that ''"the Catholic Church was involved in the matter"''. At least to me (the crank :) that's why I'd appreciate if you explained it in more detail.

:My opinion is the same as yours that there was an involvement but I'm not sure that I understand it the same way as you do. I know that Gorges Lemaître, the Catholic prist, proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory<ref>

After wikipedia and believed this time.

</ref>, and also that the theory is false since I personally executed the for long time neglected calculation of value of [[intrinsic redshift]] and it turned out roughly as it is observed, which implies that practically there is no expansion of universe. Results of my calculations were not published since 1985 when they were done, except recently in conservapedia<ref>

[[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]].

</ref>, but I don't think that the Catholic Church was involved in the matter of blocking the publication. Do you? :) [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 14:08, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::Ottava, are you saying that a large percentage of Catholics accept the Big Bang theory? If so, is it because it seems reasonable to them? Or because it's Catholic dogma, or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:36, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::It is both accepted by Catholics and given official approval by the Vatican. After all, [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] was a famous Catholic Priest and the originator of it. The Catholic Church also says there is enough reason to believe that evolution is okay. Afterall, Darwin made it clear that he believed in Aristotelian theory (and thus, Aristotelian Metaphysics which St. Thomas Aquinas relied upon), and that Darwin was Anglican his whole life, whether High Church or not is a different matter. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 15:03, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Actually Darwin was Unitarian, not Anglican (he was baptised Anglican mainly due to social pressure) and it's pretty clear that he at least partly abandoned Christianity. He intended to become an Anglican vicar at one point (mainly so he could spend six days a week collecting beetles) but his mother was a practicing Unitarian and took him to her church, and his father and paternal grandfather were atheists. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 15:33, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Unitarian at the time was not a set "religion" but a religious philosophy, with many Low Church Anglicans adopting it. Darwin trained to become an Anglican priest, and Anglican thought and wording is throughout his texts. Darwin's actions and ideals are in line with the Franciscan school of natural philosophy, which is deeply connected to Aristotelian belief. You can see that in the writings of Roger Bacon and many Franciscan scientists. Darwin's constant referral to Aristotelian beliefs and logic is inline with that. Darwin married as an Anglican, was buried as an Anglican, etc. Such things are stripped away by modern atheists who want to make their current view seem more "historic". Darwin had many supporters in the Anglican clergy, by the way. He was never "high church", but you don't have to be high church to be religious. :) [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 16:02, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Darwin may well have been buried as an Anglican but he described himself as an agnostic. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:04, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::That term didn't exist at his time. So I doubt it highly. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 16:07, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Of course it did; it was coined by his friend Thomas Huxley. Darwin used it on at least one occasion. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:24, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::[http://books.google.com/books?id=qjN6uTdy7hgC&pg=PA1&dq=Darwin+Anglican&hl=en&ei=xldyTtmGPOn00gGsiNWqCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Darwin%20Anglican&f=false By the way, a good read] on the matter. :) [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 16:07, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Would you mind seeing to it that the above information gets into the appropriate articles? I'd like to see a [[Catholic views on evolution]] article, for example. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:06, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Eventually. However, I do have a rather strong conflict with my personal involvement with the Church, publications on Catholic Theology, Cathology apologia, my work with Catholic advocacy groups, etc. I merely wanted to add a little note that you don't have to be liberal to believe in it. :) [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 15:08, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::JimJast, I'm a tad confused by your response. I was merely stating that belief in the Big Bang wasn't necessarily "liberal" or reflected a liberal bias. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 15:08, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Ottava, I agree on this point.

:::My question was whether you think that Catholics make it ''also'' a part of ''their faith'' (since the Pope accepts it).

:::Being from a Lutheran family, and being educated briefly by my grandpa in matters "of faith", mostly about "Catholic errors", and the absolute need to be trufhful, my concern was that the Catholics are wrong on one more point since the Big Bang was proven wrong in 1985 and then the sbject was considered not interesting enough to publish it, as editors of "''Physical Review Letters"'' wrote me).

:::There are many other pseudo scientific "theories" popping around and scientific journals can't waste space and time on rejecting them all and leave the rejection to "[[relativists]]". It creates an impression of the BBH being right which only "crackpots" like myself object to. But of course even a crackpot might be right especially when the ideas he/she supports are supported also by rigorous physics and math as in this case. Thanks for responding and consider the case explained. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 14:41, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::"you think that Catholics make it ''also'' a part of ''their faith'" I would say that many Catholics do. :) One of the reason why there were so many scientists who were Catholic monks is from St. Francis saying that we must understand nature so that we can most appreciate the world God has given us. Dominicans pursue science because they believe that knowledge is the path to God, which includes scientific knowledge. Combined with the allegorical interpretation of Genesis, many Catholics pursue these theories fully without seeing any contradiction with their faith (and instead see it as necessary to pursue them to best fulfill their faith). :) By the way, there has been no establishment of a universal understanding of matter, so the idea that the Big Bang was "proven" wrong is not true - there are a few contradictions, but there are a few contradictions in everything because we have not figured out how to tie all the loose ends together. P.S. I've had plenty of college level physics classes and not one ever dismissed the Big Bang. :) [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 15:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::Ottava, it is a '''fact''' that the Big Bang hangs only on the lack of understanding of gravitation among "[[relativists]]". It exists only since, as Feynman says, "no good men work in it". I strted my PhD in gravitation to see what's going on there. Einsteinian gravitation is against ''"[[relativists]]"'' and there is too many '''observations''' that support Einsteinian gravitation. Eventually someone with access to scientific publications starts treating astrophysics seriously and easily discovers that the Big Bang is a hoax. It is obvious for a real physicist (e.g. someone like Feynman). [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 21:48, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"it is a '''fact''' the Big Bang hangs only on the lack of understanding" - you are the only person I have ever seen make such a claim, so I find it incredibly hard to believe. The absurdity also makes me doubt that you have ever worked at the graduate level in physics, especially with such strong terms which I have never seen any physicist use. As such, I do not think I can, in clean conscience, continue discussing the matter with you. Sorry. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 00:05, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Before we part for good I'd like to appologise for hurting your feelings by doubting the infallibility of the Pope, and tell you briefly why I'm sure that the big bang is a fake. And BTW, why didn't you ask that question, before labeling me a lier, while the answer may satisfy your curiosity (as I believe you are a curious person).

::::::::You may ask your friends physicists who believe that the big bang is not a fake whether they know what is the [[intrinsic redshift]] in our universe. The possible answers are (i) "don't know", (ii) "negligible, I guess", (iii) "depending on density of universe, but I don't know how", (iv) "ca. 72km/s/Mpc".

:::::::::Redshift isn't measured in km/s/Mpc; it's measured in terms of z, or occasionally in terms of shifted frequency. You don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:30, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::I calculated this [[intrinsic redshift]] with very simple, easy to repeate for an intelligent high school student calculation, and the last answer is true. It means that there is no expansion of the universe since it is the redshift that astrophysicists observe but can't calculate since they don't know how. There is no such calculation in the whole scientific literature. The BBH theorists assume answer (ii) ("negligible"). Why, if I calculated it and got 72km/s/Mpc, which incidentally the Hubble redshift is observed as such?

::::::::And then I invented a relativistic theory explaining the illusion of expanding universe which predicted the illusion of accelerating expansion exacctly as Supernova Cosmology Project observed in 1998 with one standard deviation accuracy (max possible to confirm agreemant of theory with observations, predicted by little me 13 years earlier). Never published though (except in conservapedia) since editors '''belive''' that the universe is expanding and my university blocked my access to the university server so that I had to type the results into conservapedia manually instead just showing a link to them. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 20:19, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

My understanding is the Catholic Church has given ''qualified'' acceptance to Big Bang / evolution / etc., on the basis that that was the predominant scientific opinion, and they want Catholicism and Science to coexist harmoniously. The major qualification, as I understand it, is the need for a literal Adam and Eve and a literal Fall. But God could have say, permitted life to evolve up to higher animals, but then as a special act of creation God created Adam. (Maybe he created Adam out of some evolved primate species). The Church doesn't insist that Genesis need be read completely literally, but some elements (existence of Adam/Eve) are so important theologically they can't be dispensed with. How can Christ be the New Adam if there never was an old one? If the Fall never happened, who needs Redemption? Of course, while I understand this to be the official position, not all Catholics agree with it, or are even aware of it, which is not an uncommon thing in the Catholic church. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 15:22, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:[http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110113.htm See chapter XIII]. The Catholic Church was very anti-literalist and actually persecuted many literalist sects as heretics. :) I haven't seen anything in which they required a "literal Adam and Eve", but the "Fall" is different. See also [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05692b.htm Pope Leo XIII]'s warning about certain types of interpretation of the Bible in which we try to conform the divine into the human (i.e. trying to say things literally happened when our words cannot actually contain the divine). See also the statements about how "literal" we can interpret the Bible under "Literal sense". St. Augustine wrote a whole work criticizing taking the literal sense of Genesis (''The Literal Interpretation of Genesis'' which is anti-literalist). I don't want to get into a debate about this, though. :) [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 15:53, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

The Roman Catholic Church also opposed Galileo plus Copernicus delayed the publishing of his work under after he died and it was probably due to the Roman Catholic Church. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

: The Catholic Church endorsed the Copernicus book, and did not delay it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:52, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

===Georges Lemaître===
He was a big name in coming up with it, as well as a Catholic priest. See Wikipedia for a rough biography [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre#Work]--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:54, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:Woops, I just read JimJast's post more carefully. Georges Lemaître has already been acknowledged in this debate.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:56, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

==Religious views of Charles Darwin==

* In his autobiography, Darwin wrote – “The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic.” [http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/04/darwin-an-agnostic/] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:15, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:That is not our modern definition of "agnostic". Agnostic, at the time, was known to him as the Greek word for "ignorant" or "not knowing". An "agnostic" in the modern sense means something very different, just as atheist before the modern period meant "person who was a heretic to the standard faith" as opposed to "believing in no faiths". Furthermore, it is clear that he says he had doubts as to the proof of various aspects of religion, which is no real different from what Augustine and many others described (even Mother Theresa claimed that she had doubts until the end). Faith is not about knowing, after all. He goes through arguments based on "proof", and then ends up saying that he can't possibly know what the origin was. But he does not say that religion is wrong but that people could possibly be faulty. That is twisted around to say something far different than what Darwin said. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 00:41, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

==Forgiveness + km/s/Mpc + Holy Ghost's work==

Sam, Yes I do have an idea what I'm talking about since I studied astronomy at University of Warsaw, Poland (Country of Copernicus, remember the guy? Also an unconventional fellow) since 2004 (in case you insist on verifying it). I still remember some definitions. Even if your mom didn't teach you that it is not nice to butt in with your own opinion (especially with a false one) when grownups talk, I forgive you, and hope that Ottava, being a Catholic and therefore a Christian, forgives you as well, even if you tried to confuse her in the matter of units used in astronomy.

So clearing this point, and now outside the conversation with Ottava, who might have given up on talking to me whom she considers a lier since I don't belive in the Big Bang (woman's logic is strange, don't you think?) And BTW, there are many others who dissmiss the BBH on basis of its physics as me, and math as J. Narlikar, one of the best mathematicians of India, [[Halton Arp]], American astronomer famous for his work on [[quasar]]s which don't fit the BBH, and many others, so the resistance against pseudo science seems to grow in the world) but if you support the BBH you may explain why definitions of terms used in astronomy are wrong and explain why you think they should be different than they are and why. You may start with [[Hubble constant]] (unfortunately still measured in km/s/Mpc).

For the benefit of those who don't know what Mpc (megaparsec) is I explain that it is a ''distance'' million times greater then one 1pc (parsec, short for ''"paralax one second"'') from which the radius of Earth odbit is seen as 1" (one angular second). Mpc is roughly the distance between galaxies and it is equal about 3 million light years (distance the lihgt has to travel 3 million years to cover). It is a quite large distance if one takes under consderation that the whole universe has radius of only 13 bilion lught years and the whole universe contains in its space rughly 100 billion galaxies, each galaxy containing about 100 billion stars like our Sun, most with planets flying around them. Just imagine the work the Holy Ghost is involved in while taking care of all of those planets including the Earth as one of them. Of course if we assume that She does all this work instead of leaving it to some natural process which takes care of it by itself. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 13:48, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

==References==
<References/>

== Introductory sentence ==

The First sentence in the article currently reads as follows:

:The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory used to account for the acceleration of matter throughout the Universe.

That appears to me to be wrong. Firstly, the ''acceleration'' of matter is a relatively recent discovery and is currently explained by reference to what is called dark energy. Secondly, as the article explains, the theory is not about the expansion of matter but also the expansion of space itself.

I propose that the sentence read as follows:

:The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory used to account for the observed expansion of the universe.

I invite the comments and criticism of other editors. --[[User:Horace3|Horace3]] 19:17, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

Onan

2012-10-18T22:47:52Z

Horace3: Other way around

'''Onan''' was the second son of [[Judah]]. Required to impregnate his deceased brother's wife so his brother's line would not die out, Onan instead enjoyed sexual union with her but chose to make sure impregnation would not take place by spilling his seed upon the ground. ([[Genesis]] 38:9) "And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother."

Because of his actions, he was slain by God<ref>[[Genesis]] 38:10-11</ref>. The sin he committed now bears his name: [[onanism]].

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Book of Genesis Persons]]

Atheism

2007-08-23T23:45:02Z

Horace3: Removed palpable nonsense.

[[Image:Nogod.jpg|right|200px]]
'''Atheism''', as defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' and the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', is the denial of the existence of any [[God]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998</ref>

Compare [[agnostic]] (unsure or neutral as to whether God exists or not).

== Biblical Statements Regarding Atheism ==
[[Image:134t.gif|thumb|150px|left|The psalmist [[David]] wrote: "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."]]
The writers of the Bible considered the existence of God to be self-evident and [[Moses]] simply wrote: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." ([[Genesis]] 1:1). <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/existence1.asp</ref>

Accordingly, the psalmist [[David]] wrote the following:

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" - [[Psalm]] 14:1 ([[King James Bible|KJV]])

The psalmist David also stated that "The The heavens declare the glory of God..." - Psalm 19:1

The Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans that the creation testifies to the existence of God when he wrote the following:

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..." - Romans 1:20 (KJV)
==Tenuousness of Atheism in Prominent Adherents==
[[Image:Sartre1.gif|thumb|150px|right|[[Jean-Paul Sartre]]]]
The atheism of notable atheists has had the characteristic of tenuousness in regards to maintaining thoughts in accordance with atheism. For example, [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] was one of the leading atheist of the 20th Century. Yet Jean-Paul Sartre made this candid confession:
{{cquote|As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for wont of being able to think otherwise.<ref>http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/apologetics/AP0702W4.htm</ref>}}
[[Image:darwin.jpg|thumb|140px|left|[[Charles Darwin]]]]
[[Charles Darwin]] wrote in his private notebooks that he was a [[materialism|materialist]] which is a type of atheist.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877</ref><ref>American Scientist May 1977:323</ref> The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following:
{{cquote|In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244] <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>}}

==Attempts to Dilute the Definition of Atheism==
''See also: [[Strong atheism]], [[Weak atheism]].''

[[Image:Scale.jpg‎|thumb|right|150px|Since 1979 the proponents of atheism have made a concerted effort to redefine atheism in order to shift the burden of proof.]]
Since 1979 proponents of atheism have often been attempting to dilute the definition of atheism to mean a mere [[agnosticism|lack of belief]] there is a God or gods. <ref>http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm</ref> One of the reasons why some proponents of atheism have been attempting to dilute the definition of the term atheism is to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God. <ref>http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm</ref>

In the article, ''Is Atheism Presumptuous''?, atheist [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]], a founder of [[Internet Infidels]], states that "I agree [with Copan] that anyone who claims, "God does not exist," must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists." <ref>http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm</ref> In short, the attempt to redefine atheism is a merely an attempt to make no assertions so no facts need be offered. <ref>http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm</ref> The attempt to redefine atheism, however, is not in accordance with the standard definitions of atheism that encyclopedias of philosophy employ which is that atheism is a denial of the existence of God or gods. <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998</ref><ref>http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm</ref>

The standard definition of atheism given by encyclopedias of philosophy which is the denial of the existence of God is a definition in accordance with the biblical view of atheism. Specifically, the Bible teaches that the creation clearly testifies of God and the heavens declare the glory of God.(Romans 1:20; Psalm 19:1). However, the Bible also states that men suppress the truth in unrighteousness [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:18;&version=49; (Romans 1:18)]. In short, those who do not acknowledge God are in a active state of denying what is clearly shown by nature.

==Atheism and [[Communism]] ==
[[Karl Marx]] coined the saying "[Religion] is the opium of the people".<ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/texts/Marx_Opium.html</ref> Karl Marx also wrote: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm</ref>
==Criticism==
===Atheism is Illogical===
[[Image:Bible_Const2.jpg‎|thumb|200px|right|Dr. [[D. James Kennedy]]]]
[[D. James Kennedy|Dr. D. James Kennedy]] wrote the following regarding the illogicalness of atheism:
{{cquote|Atheism is what is called a "[[universal negative]]." One of the laws of logic is that you can't prove a universal negative....You would have to examine every part of the universe....

By the way, you would have to be very, very fast because, who knows, this God, these angels....may be very, very fast, and just after you get somewhere, they may have left for another part of the universe.

This means that you would have to be [[omnipresent]]. You would also have to know everything about every part of the universe, so you would be [[omniscient]]. Then, just at the point when you proved that there was no God, you would also have proven that you were one.<ref>http://www.kennedycommentary.org/default.asp?pg=topicmessage&id=1419</ref>}}

Logician [[Mortimer Adler]] concurs with Dr. Kennedy that the standard definition of atheism which attempts to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition and prominent atheists such as [[Gordon Stein]] and [[Carl Sagan]] have candidly stated that God's existence cannot be disproven.<ref>http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm</ref>

===Atheism is Contrary to Reasonable Argument===
Theists often criticize atheism as being contrary to persuasive argument. [[Arguments for the existence of God]] include:
* [[Teleological argument]]: The universe exhibits overwhelming evidence of deliberate, intelligent, purposeful design, which implies an [[intelligent design]]er;
* [[Cosmological argument]]: Every event in our universe necessarily has a cause. However, it is impossible that there should be an unending chain of causes going back. Therefore, there necessarily must be a cause ''distinct'' from the universe as we know it which is capable of causing all things and is itself uncaused. That [[First Cause]] is God.
* [[Ontological argument]]: Since existence is inherent to the definition of God, it is impossible to conceive of God without conceiving of Him as existing;
* Historical arguments for the existence of God: Arguments stemming from historical accounts and archaeological evidence;
* Experiential arguments for the existence of God: Arguments based on personal experience and human intuition;

===Atheism and Mass Murder===
[[Image:Stalin.jpg‎ |left|150px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]]'s atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.]]
Christian apologist Gregory Koukl in his essay ''The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?''
states that "the assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them."<ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5527</ref> Koukl in his essay details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under atheistic communism.<ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5527</ref>

Koukl summarizes by stating:
{{cquote|It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.<ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5527</ref>}}

===Atheists in America are Generally Less Charitable===
[[Image:112006top.jpg|thumb|According to the Barna Group, atheists in America generally give significantly less to charity than [[theism|theist]] Americans.]]
The [[Barna Group]] found the following in regards to atheist population in America and charitable giving:
{{cquote|The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults.<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=272</ref>}}

In 2003, Arthur C. Brooks wrote in ''Policy Review'' the following:
{{cquote|The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/pg_2 Policy Review, Oct-Dec 2003 by Brooks, Arthur C]</ref>}}

ABC News reported the following:
{{cquote|...the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.

Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2</ref>}}

===Atheism and Immoral Views===
[[Image:Powder meth foil small.jpg|thumb|right|200px|American atheists are more likely than American theist to look upon illegal drug use as morally acceptable.]]
The Barna Group also found that atheists/agnostics in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; getting drunk; having a sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex to whom you are not married; having an [[abortion]]; living with someone of the opposite sex without being married; using profanity; gambling; looking at pictures of nudity or explicit sexual behavior; and engaging in [[homosexuality]]/[[bisexuality]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref>

===Atheism and Questions of Origins===
Atheism provides no useful input in regards to origins. [[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists state that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe or a universe created by natural processes and argue for a universe created by [[God]].<ref>http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> A majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic evolutionary position since [[World War II]] have been atheists.<ref>Dr. [[Don Batten]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32
December 1997.</ref><ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]</ref> [[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists also assert the [[theory of evolution]] is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth.<ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref> In addition, the current [[origin of life|naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate]].

==Atheism and the Existence of Evil==
Atheists state that the existence of evil is a problem for [[theism]] which holds to a good and powerful God.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/evil.html</ref> [[Theodicy]] is the branch of study in theology and philosophy that defends the goodness of God despite the existence of evil.<ref>http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861719540/theodicy.html</ref> In traditional Christianity and Judaism the book of Job is used to explain the existence of evil.<ref>http://apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/doctrinal_apologetics/bowman-job.html</ref> In recent times [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] often cite [[Alvin Plantinga]]'s free will defense in regards to the existence of evil. <ref>http://www.xenos.org/essays/evilpo.htm</ref><ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/handouts/free_will_defense.html</ref> The work of [[St. Augustine]] is also cited in regards to theodicy. <ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124</ref>

==Atheism and the Foundation of Modern Science==
[[Image:Bacon5.jpg|thumb|right|175px|In his essay ''Of Atheism'' [[Francis Bacon]] wrote: "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the [[Talmud]], and the [[Koran|Alcoran]], than that this universal frame is without a mind."]]
"The birth of modern [[science]] occured in Christianized [[Europe]].<ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/#anchor5343749</ref> In relation to the birth of modern science, [[Sociology|Sociologist]] of [[religion]] [[Rodney Stark]] investigated the individuals who made the most significant scientific contributions during the time period of 1543 to 1680 A.D. which is a time period associated with the [[Scientific Revolution]]. The list Mr. Stark developed in regards to top scientific contributors consisted of 52 individuals.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/origins.asp</ref> Of the 52 top contributors to science during this period only one of them was a skeptic ([[Edmund Halley]]) and another one was a [[pantheism|pantheist]] ([[Paracelsus]]). The other 50 top contributors to science during this period were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/origins.asp</ref> In addition, [[Francis Bacon]], who is sometimes referred to as "the Father of Modern Science", in a essay entitled ''Of Atheism'' wrote the following: "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the [[Talmud]], and the [[Koran|Alcoran]], than that this universal frame is without a mind."<ref>http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-17.html</ref>

In a article titled ''False conflict: Christianity is not only compatible with Science--it created it'' Stark writes the following:
{{cquote|Recent historical research has debunked the idea of a "Dark Ages" after the "fall" of [[Roman Empire|Rome]]. In fact, this was an era of profound and rapid technological progress, by the end of which Europe had surpassed the rest of the world. Moreover, the so-called "Scientific Revolution" of the sixteenth century was a result of developments begun by religious scholars starting in the eleventh century. In my own academic research I have asked why these religious scholastics were interested in science at all. Why did science develop in Europe at this time? Why did it not develop anywhere else? I find answers to those questions in unique features of Christian [[theology]].

Even in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the leading scientific figures were overwhelmingly devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God's handiwork. My studies show that the "Enlightenment" was conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists attempting to claim credit for the rise of science. The falsehood that science required the defeat of religion was proclaimed by self-appointed cheerleaders like [[Voltaire]], [[Denis Diderot|Diderot]], and [[Edward Gibbon|Gibbon]], who themselves played no part in the scientific enterprise......<ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3274629/False-conflict-Christianity-is-not.html</ref>}}

Dr. Charles Thaxton similarly states:
{{cquote|P. E. Hodgson in reviewing [[Stanley Jaki]]'s ''Science and Creation'' said: "Although we seldom recognize it, scientific research requires certain basic beliefs about the order and rationality of matter, and its accessibility to the human mind . . . they came to us in their full force through the Judeo-Christian belief in an omnipotent God, creator and sustainer of all things. In such a world view it becomes sensible to try and understand the world, and this is the fundamental reason science developed as it did in the Middle Ages in Christian Europe, culminating in the brilliant achievements of the seventeenth century."<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth17.html</ref>}}

==Ineffectiveness of Atheist Debaters==
===Doug Jesseph===
In October of 1997, atheist Jeffrey Jay Lowder, a founder of Internet Infidels, stated that he believed that "the most impressive debater to date" was [[Doug Jesseph]].<ref>http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/october.html</ref> Yet Doug Jesseph claimed in a debate with [[William Lane Craig]] in 1996 that the [[origin of life]] had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).<ref>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph1.html</ref> In 1996, [[John Horgan]] wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: "Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense” or “paper chemistry.”"<ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp</ref> In addition, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in ''[[Scientific American]]'': "The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrprblmschcknndgg</ref>

===Gordon Stein===
[[Image:Bahnsen.jpg‎|thumb|150px|Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] became known as the ''man atheists fear most" due to [[Michael Martin]]'s cancellation of their scheduled debate.]]
In 1985, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] and prominent atheist Gordon Stein had a debate at the University of California, Irvine. [[John Frame]] wrote regarding the debate in which Dr. Bahnsen used the [[transcendental argument for the existence of God]] that "In the end, Stein walked and talked like a broken man."<ref>http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/Bahnsen.htm</ref> The Greg Bahnsen-Gordon Stein debate was recorded and transcribed and was dubbed "The Great Debate".<ref>http://prosapologian.wordpress.com/2007/08/15/great-debates/</ref><ref>http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf</ref>

===Greg Bahnsen and Michael Martin===

[[Greg Bahnsen|Dr. Greg Bahnsen]] became known as the "man atheists fear most".<ref>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/webpages54/ap/biobahn.html</ref>
This is because [[Harvard]]-educated [[Michael Martin|Dr. Michael Martin]] was scheduled to debate Bahnsen but pulled out of the debate at the "eleventh hour".
A press release at the time said that Dr. Martin offered ruses on why he pulled out and didn't want the scheduled debate recorded but the real reason was that "...Michael Martin is afraid that he will be publicly humiliated just as his friend and fellow atheist, Dr. Gordon Stein, was..."<ref>Anon., [http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/press.htm Press Release]</ref>

Martin later released his [[transcendental argument for the non-existence of God]] (TANG) in 1996 which was rebutted by Christian apologists.<ref>http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/martin_TAG.html</ref>

== Other Well Known Proponents of Atheism ==
Prominent atheists and atheist schools of thought include:
* Carvaka school: an atheistic and materialistic offshoot of [[Hinduism]] in the 6th century b.c.
* Samkhya school: an atheistic school of classical Indian philosophy, originating in the 6th century b.c.
* Diagoras: Greek philosopher who denied the existence of the Greek pantheon
* Epicurus: Greek philosopher espousing [[materialism]], and stated that, even if the gods exist, they do not interact with humans and are therefore non-existent for all practical purposes;
* Lucretius: Greek philosopher espousing materialism, and stated that man should not believe in the gods because their ideas about the gods and their fear of death made men unhappy;
* [[Karl Marx]]: founder of Communism;
* Friedrich Nietzsche: Prominent 20th century atheist philosopher;
* [[Lenin]] and [[Stalin]]: Early Communist leaders in Russia;
* [[Mao Zedong]]: Chinese Communist leader;
* Paul Kurtz: founder of the Council of [[Secular Humanism]]
*Isaac Asimov
*[[David Hume]]
*[[Bertrand Russell]]
*[[Ayn Rand]]
*[[Richard Dawkins]]
*[[Douglas Adams]]
*[[Ernest Hemingway]]

== Atheist population as a percentage of various countries' populations==
Specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggests] that the true proportion of atheists is 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain and 32% in France. In the United States, however, another 14% of the respondents identified themselves as agnostic indicating that 18% of the U.S. population do not ascribe to theistic views.<ref>In addition, 6% declined to say; and 3% indicated they were unsure of their beliefs.</ref>

== American's view of atheists ==
Research in the American Sociological Review finds that atheists are the group that Americans least relate to for shared vision or want to have marry into their family.
<ref>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Position:
! This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society:
! I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

==External links==
*[http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism Decline of Atheism -CreationWiki]
*[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf European Commission report on Social values, Science and Technology, includes info on Religious beliefs]

== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Backmasking

2007-08-19T03:04:45Z

Horace3:

'''Backmasking''' is a method of playing [[music]] records backwards using a specialized record player. This has been known to produce satanic messages hidden in some songs{{fact}}.

[[Category:Music| ]]

Ward Churchill

2007-07-26T02:05:59Z

Horace3: Add reference

[[Image:Wardchurchill.jpg|right|thumb|300px]]
'''Ward Churchill''' was a professor at the [[University of Colorado]] who [[deceit|falsely represented]] himself as an [[American Indian]] in order to become a lecturer on [[Native American]] studies.

He was criticized [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42638] for referring to the victims of the [[9/11]] attacks as "little Eichmanns", comparing them to the infamous Nazi leader, in an article titled ''Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens'' [http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html] that was published shortly after 9/11.

In 2006, the university's Standing Committee on Research Misconduct found Churchill guilty of several charges, including plagiarism and fabrication of information. [http://www.coloradodaily.com/articles/2006/05/16/news/c_u_and_boulder/news1.html]

[[Category:Liberal activists]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Churchill, Ward}}

Royal Navy

2007-07-24T00:00:25Z

Horace3:

The '''Royal Navy''' is the [[navy|naval]] branch of the [[military]] forces of the [[United Kingdom]]. With 91 commissioned vessels, it is considered the world's second most powerful navy in terms of global force projection, after the [[United States Navy]].<ref>[http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3867 Royal Navy website]</ref><ref>[http://zope06.v.servelocity.net/hjs/sections/britain_world/naval_trident Henry Jackson Society website]</ref> As of November 2006, the Naval Service (including the [[Royal Marines]]) had 38,710 regular personnel.

==History==
The first navy of [[England]] was established in the 9th century by King [[Alfred the Great]]. During the medieval period England had a significant naval force, defeating the [[France|French]] navy at the [[Battle of Sluys]] in 1340, in the early years of the [[Hundred Years War]]. Later, under Queen [[Elizabeth I]] the English fleet defeated the [[Spanish Armada]] in 1588, but suffered several later defeats at the hands of the Spanish navy.

A permanent naval service, under [[Parliament|Parliamentary]] control, was developed during the rule of [[Oliver Cromwell]] in the 1650s. In 1707, with the union of [[England]] and [[Scotland]] into the [[United Kingdom]], the Royal Scots Navy was merged into the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy suffered defeats against the Spanish navy at [[Cartagena de Indias]] in 1741, during the [[War of Jenkin's Ear]], and against the French navy at the 1781 [[Battle of the Chesapeake]].

However, during the [[Napoleonic Wars]] the Royal Navy played a major role, reaching the height of its achievements at the [[Battle of Trafalgar]] in 1805, where a British fleet commanded by [[Horatio Nelson|Lord Nelson]] decisively defeated the French. During the remainder of the 19th century the Royal Navy became the world's dominant naval force, and played a major part in building and defending the [[British Empire]]. In 1906 HMS Dreadnought became the Royal Navy's first "all-big-gun" battleship, a key turning point in British naval history; subsequently, large battleships became the dominant form of seapower.

In both the [[First World War]] and [[Second World War]], the Royal Navy played a key role in keeping the United Kingdom supplied with food, despite German attempts at a naval blockade using [[submarine]] warfare. After the Second World War, during the [[Cold War]] years, the disintegration of the [[British Empire]] forced Britain to downsize its navy, while the [[United States Navy]] took on the major role as the world's dominant sea power. The Royal Navy was re-organised with a strong emphasis on anti-[[submarine]] capabilities in the North [[Atlantic Ocean]], to counter the potential threat of the [[Soviet Union]].

In 1982, the Royal Navy was the principal British force in the [[Falklands War]]. The British submarine HMS ''Conqueror'', a nuclear-powered submarine, sank the Argentine cruiser ARA ''General Belgrano'' during this conflict, the first time in naval history that a nuclear-powered submarine had engaged an enemy ship with torpedoes.

==References==
<references/>

[[category:United Kingdom]]

Ted Nugent

2007-07-15T23:40:06Z

Horace3: Grammar etc.

[[Image:450px-Ted_Nugent_in_concert.jpg|right|250px|thumb]]
'''Ted Nugent''' (b. 12/13/1948) is a [[conservative]] musician, originally from [[Detroit]], [[Michigan]], but currently living in [[Texas]]. He has recorded 30 albums that have sold over 35 million copies worldwide. He has published several books, including a cookbook he co-authored with his wife, Shermane. Nugent is an avid hunter and is often criticized by liberal animal rights protesters. He is a friend of [[George W. Bush]]. [http://www.tednugent.com/news/tv_stranglehold.shtml]

Nugent is on the Board of Directors of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He supports the American military and the [[Republican Party]]. Nugent also believes that [[homosexuality]] is an abomination.

Theory of relativity

2007-07-06T04:31:31Z

Horace3: /* Government Support for Relativistic research */

'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related theories in [[physics]], and to a principle which led to the first theory. Special relativity (SR) is a theory which describes the laws of motion for non-accelerating bodies traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light. At speeds approaching zero, Special Relativity is identical to Newton's Laws of Motion. Special Relativity was developed by [[Hendrik Lorentz]], [[Henri Poincaré]], and [[Albert Einstein]].

General Relativity (GR) is a theory which explains the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was developed by [[David Hilbert]] and [[Albert Einstein]] as an extension of the postulates of Special Relativity.<ref>"[T]he German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein."[http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/relativity/history-1.html Nobel Prize historical account]</ref> A dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 made Einstein a household name.

== Special Relativity ==
Special Relativity is usually explained in terms of two assumptions (postulates):

# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''

In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
# It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.
# No location in the universe has any physical laws any different from any other location in the universe.

Special Relativity (SR) was initially developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]], working on problems in electrodynamics and the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]], which had not found any sign of [[aether|luminiferous aether]], which was believed to be the substance which carried electromagnetic waves. Special relativity alters [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)

At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Einstein-Lorentz relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The famous equation attributed to Einstein, ''E=mc2'', describes the relationship between energy and the rest mass of a body.

Relativity is essential for massive or fast-moving bodies; for electromagnetism; for light and other radiation; for quantum field theory; for spin; and for nuclear energy. Particles at low mass and low speed can be accurately approximated by [[classical mechanics]] (such as [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion). At the two extremes, modeling the behavior of electrons requires that relativistic effects be taken into account (the chemically significant phenomenon of [[electron spin]] arises from relativity), and the course light passing through a region containing many massive bodies such as galaxies will be distorted ([[classical mechanics]], in which light travels with infinite speed in straight lines, does not predict this). These are both experimentally confirmed ([[electron spin]] was known before relativity arose, and telescopic observations confirm that galactic clusters distort the paths of the light passing through them).

== General Relativity ==
General Relativity is a mathematical extension of Special Relativity. GR proposes that space-time is curved by massive bodies, so that near any massive body, the sum of the angles in a triangle is not exactly 180 degrees.

The GR field equations are
:<math> G_{uv} = 8\pi\, T_{uv} </math>
where ''Guv'' is the [[Einstein curvature tensor]], and ''Tuv'' is the [[stress-energy tensor]], ''Guv'' and ''Tuv'' are both rank 2 symmetric tensors. The GR field equations is a system of [[partial differential equations]] that relates the curvature of space to the mass occupying the space.

General relativity provides one explanation for the seemingly anomalous precession of Mercury's perihelion. There are other explanations based in Newtonian gravity, such as factoring in the pull of the other planets on Mercury's orbit. One Newtonian explanation requires a slight alternation to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, which is disfavored by mathematicians due to its inelegance in integrating.

British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Briton Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 with a local Army unit to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. Upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. In fact recent analysis of Eddington's work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data were inconclusive about the theory of relativity. The prediction was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] {{fact}}. Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.

::''It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.''<ref>http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm</ref>

The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.

Special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity where all gravitational fields are weak. Alternatively, special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity when all reference frames are inertial (non-accelerating and without gravity).

==Time dilation==
[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]
One important consequence of SR's postulates is that an observer in one reference frame will observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" more slowly than in the observer's own frame. This can be proven mathematically using basic geometry.

The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying [[muon decay]]. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic]] [[particles]] with a very short [[halflife]] (1.53 microseconds at rest) and a very fast speed (0.994c). By putting muon detectors at the top (D1) and bottom (D2) of a mountain with a separation of 1900m, scientists could measure accurately the proportion of muons reaching the second detector in comparison to the first. The proportion found was different to the proportion that was calculated without taking into account relativistic effects.

Using the equation for exponential decay, they could use this proportion to calculate the time taken for the muons to decay, relative to the muon. Then, using the time dilation equation they could then work out the dilated time. The dilated time showed a good correlation with the time it took the muons to reach the second sensor, thereby proving the theory.

The time taken for a muon to travel from D1 to D2 as measured by a stationary observer is:

<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math>

The fraction of muons arriving at D2 in comparison to D1 was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)

Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then

<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math>

This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.

Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}} = \frac{0.689 \times{10^{-6}}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{0.994^{2}}{1^{2}}}} = 6.3\times 10^{-6}\textrm{s}</math>

This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.

==Length contraction==
When two inertial reference frames move past each other in a straight line with constant relative velocity, an observer in one reference frame would observe a metre rule in the other frame to be shorter.

The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}</math>

Where
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

==Mass increase==

We also see that as a body moves with increasing velocity its [[mass]] also increases.

The mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object when it is at rest.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Since speed is relative, it follows that two observers in different inertial reference frames may disagree on the mass and kinetic energy of a body. Since all inertial reference frames are treated on an equal footing, it follows that mass and energy are interchangeable.

==Evidence for Relativity==
There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity.<ref>http://nobelprize.org/</ref>

In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and were directly able to observe the relativistic "twin paradox" the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy <ref>Hafele-Keating Experiment [http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment]</ref> <ref>as described in [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?], a personal web page, which cites Haefele and Keating (1972), ''Science'' Vol. 177 pp 166-170 as its source</ref> <ref>Sullivan, Walter (1972), "Relativity Theory Awaits Affirmation", September 23, 1972, p. 61. Note: Article refers to a different experiment, which Sullivan discusses, saying that if successful it would be "the second time within a year" that relativity had been confirmed, then proceeds to discuss Hafele[sic] and Keating's experiment as the first.</ref>

Predictions of relativity has not historically been used to make the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) function properly, which are synchronized by simply communicating with stations on earth. <ref>Some do claim that relativity is "vital" to GPS even though GPS developed independently of theoretical preductions. See [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html]</ref>.

==Pending research==
Today some physicists are working on hypothesizing how general relativity might have related to the other three forces of nature during the first fraction of a second of the [[Big bang]]. Two of the more commonly studied attempts are [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]], but they have been complete failures. Critics increasingly point out that [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]] are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by [[Karl Popper]].<ref>See, for example, ''Not Even Wrong'', by Peter Woit</ref>.

==Government Support for Relativistic research==
The Theory of Relativity enjoys a disproportionate{{fact}} share of federal funding of physics research today,<ref>The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project despite substantial criticism by scientists that it was wasting scarce research dollars. John Travis, "LIGO: a $ 250 million gamble; Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory; includes related article," ''Science'' p. 612 (Apr. 30, 1993). "Adding to the acrimony is LIGO's $ 250 million price tag, which some hold responsible for NSF's recent funding woes." ''Id.''</ref>. In at least one case that research has been unsuccessful. The $365 million dollar LIGO project has failed to detect the gravity waves predicted by relativity.<ref>http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html</ref> However, more than twenty years of observing the [[pulsar]] pair PSR 1913+16 have shown its orbital period to be dropping at exactly the rate expected due to loss of orbital energy by gravitational radiation <ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html</ref>, resulting in the 1993 Nobel Prize for physics being awarded to the discoverers of the pulsar pair, Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse.

There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views, and there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.<ref>Although the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|liberally biased Wikipedia]] contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like ''The Economist'' recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Relativity Theory of Relativity] omits one word of criticism.</ref> Physicist [[Robert Dicke]] of Princeton University was a prominent critic<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref> of the theory of relativity and that may have hurt him professionally, even though his theory "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."<ref>"Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_bekenstein.html] </ref> Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was never awarded a Nobel Prize just as other outspoken critics of scientific theories were passed over in granting the Nobel Prize to less-accompished colleagues.<ref>Other examples of scientists denied Nobel Prizes due to their criticisms of scientific theories are Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] and Dr. [[Raymond Damadian]]</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

==External Links ==
:[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]

Theory of relativity

2007-07-06T04:25:55Z

Horace3: Matched claim to example.

'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related theories in [[physics]], and to a principle which led to the first theory. Special relativity (SR) is a theory which describes the laws of motion for non-accelerating bodies traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light. At speeds approaching zero, Special Relativity is identical to Newton's Laws of Motion. Special Relativity was developed by [[Hendrik Lorentz]], [[Henri Poincaré]], and [[Albert Einstein]].

General Relativity (GR) is a theory which explains the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was developed by [[David Hilbert]] and [[Albert Einstein]] as an extension of the postulates of Special Relativity.<ref>"[T]he German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein."[http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/relativity/history-1.html Nobel Prize historical account]</ref> A dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 made Einstein a household name.

== Special Relativity ==
Special Relativity is usually explained in terms of two assumptions (postulates):

# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''

In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
# It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.
# No location in the universe has any physical laws any different from any other location in the universe.

Special Relativity (SR) was initially developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]], working on problems in electrodynamics and the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]], which had not found any sign of [[aether|luminiferous aether]], which was believed to be the substance which carried electromagnetic waves. Special relativity alters [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)

At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Einstein-Lorentz relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The famous equation attributed to Einstein, ''E=mc2'', describes the relationship between energy and the rest mass of a body.

Relativity is essential for massive or fast-moving bodies; for electromagnetism; for light and other radiation; for quantum field theory; for spin; and for nuclear energy. Particles at low mass and low speed can be accurately approximated by [[classical mechanics]] (such as [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion). At the two extremes, modeling the behavior of electrons requires that relativistic effects be taken into account (the chemically significant phenomenon of [[electron spin]] arises from relativity), and the course light passing through a region containing many massive bodies such as galaxies will be distorted ([[classical mechanics]], in which light travels with infinite speed in straight lines, does not predict this). These are both experimentally confirmed ([[electron spin]] was known before relativity arose, and telescopic observations confirm that galactic clusters distort the paths of the light passing through them).

== General Relativity ==
General Relativity is a mathematical extension of Special Relativity. GR proposes that space-time is curved by massive bodies, so that near any massive body, the sum of the angles in a triangle is not exactly 180 degrees.

The GR field equations are
:<math> G_{uv} = 8\pi\, T_{uv} </math>
where ''Guv'' is the [[Einstein curvature tensor]], and ''Tuv'' is the [[stress-energy tensor]], ''Guv'' and ''Tuv'' are both rank 2 symmetric tensors. The GR field equations is a system of [[partial differential equations]] that relates the curvature of space to the mass occupying the space.

General relativity provides one explanation for the seemingly anomalous precession of Mercury's perihelion. There are other explanations based in Newtonian gravity, such as factoring in the pull of the other planets on Mercury's orbit. One Newtonian explanation requires a slight alternation to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, which is disfavored by mathematicians due to its inelegance in integrating.

British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Briton Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 with a local Army unit to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. Upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. In fact recent analysis of Eddington's work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data were inconclusive about the theory of relativity. The prediction was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] {{fact}}. Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.

::''It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.''<ref>http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm</ref>

The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.

Special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity where all gravitational fields are weak. Alternatively, special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity when all reference frames are inertial (non-accelerating and without gravity).

==Time dilation==
[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]
One important consequence of SR's postulates is that an observer in one reference frame will observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" more slowly than in the observer's own frame. This can be proven mathematically using basic geometry.

The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying [[muon decay]]. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic]] [[particles]] with a very short [[halflife]] (1.53 microseconds at rest) and a very fast speed (0.994c). By putting muon detectors at the top (D1) and bottom (D2) of a mountain with a separation of 1900m, scientists could measure accurately the proportion of muons reaching the second detector in comparison to the first. The proportion found was different to the proportion that was calculated without taking into account relativistic effects.

Using the equation for exponential decay, they could use this proportion to calculate the time taken for the muons to decay, relative to the muon. Then, using the time dilation equation they could then work out the dilated time. The dilated time showed a good correlation with the time it took the muons to reach the second sensor, thereby proving the theory.

The time taken for a muon to travel from D1 to D2 as measured by a stationary observer is:

<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math>

The fraction of muons arriving at D2 in comparison to D1 was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)

Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then

<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math>

This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.

Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}} = \frac{0.689 \times{10^{-6}}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{0.994^{2}}{1^{2}}}} = 6.3\times 10^{-6}\textrm{s}</math>

This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.

==Length contraction==
When two inertial reference frames move past each other in a straight line with constant relative velocity, an observer in one reference frame would observe a metre rule in the other frame to be shorter.

The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}</math>

Where
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

==Mass increase==

We also see that as a body moves with increasing velocity its [[mass]] also increases.

The mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object when it is at rest.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Since speed is relative, it follows that two observers in different inertial reference frames may disagree on the mass and kinetic energy of a body. Since all inertial reference frames are treated on an equal footing, it follows that mass and energy are interchangeable.

==Evidence for Relativity==
There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity.<ref>http://nobelprize.org/</ref>

In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and were directly able to observe the relativistic "twin paradox" the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy <ref>Hafele-Keating Experiment [http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment]</ref> <ref>as described in [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?], a personal web page, which cites Haefele and Keating (1972), ''Science'' Vol. 177 pp 166-170 as its source</ref> <ref>Sullivan, Walter (1972), "Relativity Theory Awaits Affirmation", September 23, 1972, p. 61. Note: Article refers to a different experiment, which Sullivan discusses, saying that if successful it would be "the second time within a year" that relativity had been confirmed, then proceeds to discuss Hafele[sic] and Keating's experiment as the first.</ref>

Predictions of relativity has not historically been used to make the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) function properly, which are synchronized by simply communicating with stations on earth. <ref>Some do claim that relativity is "vital" to GPS even though GPS developed independently of theoretical preductions. See [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html]</ref>.

==Pending research==
Today some physicists are working on hypothesizing how general relativity might have related to the other three forces of nature during the first fraction of a second of the [[Big bang]]. Two of the more commonly studied attempts are [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]], but they have been complete failures. Critics increasingly point out that [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]] are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by [[Karl Popper]].<ref>See, for example, ''Not Even Wrong'', by Peter Woit</ref>.

==Government Support for Relativistic research==
The Theory of Relativity enjoys a disproportionate{{fact}} share of federal funding of physics research today,<ref>The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project despite substantial criticism by scientists that it was wasting scarce research dollars. John Travis, "LIGO: a $ 250 million gamble; Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory; includes related article," ''Science'' p. 612 (Apr. 30, 1993). "Adding to the acrimony is LIGO's $ 250 million price tag, which some hold responsible for NSF's recent funding woes." ''Id.''</ref>. In one case that research has been unsuccessful. The $365 million dollar LIGO project has failed to detect the gravity waves predicted by relativity.<ref>http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html</ref> However, more than twenty years of observing the [[pulsar]] pair PSR 1913+16 have shown its orbital period to be dropping at exactly the rate expected due to loss of orbital energy by gravitational radiation <ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html</ref>, resulting in the 1993 Nobel Prize for physics being awarded to the discoverers of the pulsar pair, Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse.

There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views, and there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.<ref>Although the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|liberally biased Wikipedia]] contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like ''The Economist'' recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Relativity Theory of Relativity] omits one word of criticism.</ref> Physicist [[Robert Dicke]] of Princeton University was a prominent critic<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref> of the theory of relativity and that may have hurt him professionally, even though his theory "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."<ref>"Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_bekenstein.html] </ref> Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was never awarded a Nobel Prize just as other outspoken critics of scientific theories were passed over in granting the Nobel Prize to less-accompished colleagues.<ref>Other examples of scientists denied Nobel Prizes due to their criticisms of scientific theories are Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] and Dr. [[Raymond Damadian]]</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

==External Links ==
:[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]

Theory of relativity

2007-07-06T04:11:02Z

Horace3: Citation required.

'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related theories in [[physics]], and to a principle which led to the first theory. Special relativity (SR) is a theory which describes the laws of motion for non-accelerating bodies traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light. At speeds approaching zero, Special Relativity is identical to Newton's Laws of Motion. Special Relativity was developed by [[Hendrik Lorentz]], [[Henri Poincaré]], and [[Albert Einstein]].

General Relativity (GR) is a theory which explains the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was developed by [[David Hilbert]] and [[Albert Einstein]] as an extension of the postulates of Special Relativity.<ref>"[T]he German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein."[http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/relativity/history-1.html Nobel Prize historical account]</ref> A dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 made Einstein a household name.

== Special Relativity ==
Special Relativity is usually explained in terms of two assumptions (postulates):

# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''

Special Relativity (SR) was initially developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]], working on problems in electrodynamics and the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]], which had not found any sign of [[aether|luminiferous aether]], which was believed to be the substance which carried electromagnetic waves. Special relativity alters [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)

At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Einstein-Lorentz relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The famous equation attributed to Einstein, ''E=mc2'', describes the relationship between energy and the rest mass of a body.

Relativity is essential for massive or fast-moving bodies; for electromagnetism; for light and other radiation; for quantum field theory; for spin; and for nuclear energy. Particles at low mass and low speed can be accurately approximated by [[classical mechanics]] (such as [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion). At the two extremes, modeling the behavior of electrons requires that relativistic effects be taken into account (the chemically significant phenomenon of [[electron spin]] arises from relativity), and the course light passing through a region containing many massive bodies such as galaxies will be distorted ([[classical mechanics]], in which light travels with infinite speed in straight lines, does not predict this). These are both experimentally confirmed ([[electron spin]] was known before relativity arose, and telescopic observations confirm that galactic clusters distort the paths of the light passing through them).

== General Relativity ==
General Relativity is a mathematical extension of Special Relativity. GR proposes that space-time is curved by massive bodies, so that near any massive body, the sum of the angles in a triangle is not exactly 180 degrees.

The GR field equations are
:<math> G_{uv} = 8\pi\, T_{uv} </math>
where ''Guv'' is the [[Einstein curvature tensor]], and ''Tuv'' is the [[stress-energy tensor]], ''Guv'' and ''Tuv'' are both rank 2 symmetric tensors. The GR field equations is a system of [[partial differential equations]] that relates the curvature of space to the mass occupying the space.

General relativity provides one explanation for the seemingly anomalous precession of Mercury's perihelion. There are other explanations based in Newtonian gravity, such as factoring in the pull of the other planets on Mercury's orbit. One Newtonian explanation requires a slight alternation to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, which is disfavored by mathematicians due to its inelegance in integrating.

British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Briton Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 with a local Army unit to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. Upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. In fact recent analysis of Eddington's work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data were inconclusive about the theory of relativity. The prediction was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] {{fact}}. Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.

::''It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.''<ref>http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm</ref>

The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.

Special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity where all gravitational fields are weak.

==Time dilation==
[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]
One important consequence of SR's postulates is that an observer in one reference frame will observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" more slowly than in the observer's own frame. This can be proven mathematically using basic geometry.

The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying [[muon decay]]. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic]] [[particles]] with a very short [[halflife]] (1.53 microseconds at rest) and a very fast speed (0.994c). By putting muon detectors at the top (D1) and bottom (D2) of a mountain with a separation of 1900m, scientists could measure accurately the proportion of muons reaching the second detector in comparison to the first. The proportion found was different to the proportion that was calculated without taking into account relativistic effects.

Using the equation for exponential decay, they could use this proportion to calculate the time taken for the muons to decay, relative to the muon. Then, using the time dilation equation they could then work out the dilated time. The dilated time showed a good correlation with the time it took the muons to reach the second sensor, thereby proving the theory.

The time taken for a muon to travel from D1 to D2 as measured by a stationary observer is:

<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math>

The fraction of muons arriving at D2 in comparison to D1 was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)

Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then

<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math>

This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.

Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}} = \frac{0.689 \times{10^{-6}}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{0.994^{2}}{1^{2}}}} = 6.3\times 10^{-6}\textrm{s}</math>

This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.

==Length contraction==
When two inertial reference frames move past each other in a straight line with constant relative velocity, an observer in one reference frame would observe a metre rule in the other frame to be shorter.

The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}</math>

Where
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

==Mass increase==

We also see that as a body moves with increasing velocity its [[mass]] also increases.

The mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object when it is at rest.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Since speed is relative, it follows that two observers in different inertial reference frames may disagree on the mass and kinetic energy of a body. Since all inertial reference frames are treated on an equal footing, it follows that mass and energy are interchangeable.

==Evidence for Relativity==
There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity.<ref>http://nobelprize.org/</ref>

In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and were directly able to observe the relativistic "twin paradox" the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy <ref>Hafele-Keating Experiment [http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment]</ref> <ref>as described in [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?], a personal web page, which cites Haefele and Keating (1972), ''Science'' Vol. 177 pp 166-170 as its source</ref> <ref>Sullivan, Walter (1972), "Relativity Theory Awaits Affirmation", September 23, 1972, p. 61. Note: Article refers to a different experiment, which Sullivan discusses, saying that if successful it would be "the second time within a year" that relativity had been confirmed, then proceeds to discuss Hafele[sic] and Keating's experiment as the first.</ref>

Predictions of relativity has not historically been used to make the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) function properly, which are synchronized by simply communicating with stations on earth. <ref>Some do claim that relativity is "vital" to GPS even though GPS developed independently of theoretical preductions. See [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html]</ref>.

==Pending research==
Today some physicists are working on hypothesizing how general relativity might have related to the other three forces of nature during the first fraction of a second of the [[Big bang]]. Two of the more commonly studied attempts are [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]], but they have been complete failures. Critics increasingly point out that [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]] are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by [[Karl Popper]].<ref>See, for example, ''Not Even Wrong'', by Peter Woit</ref>.

==Government Support for Relativistic research==
The Theory of Relativity enjoys a disproportionate share of federal funding of physics research today,<ref>The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project despite substantial criticism by scientists that it was wasting scarce research dollars. John Travis, "LIGO: a $ 250 million gamble; Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory; includes related article," ''Science'' p. 612 (Apr. 30, 1993). "Adding to the acrimony is LIGO's $ 250 million price tag, which some hold responsible for NSF's recent funding woes." ''Id.''</ref> much of it unsuccessful{{fact}}. The $365 million dollar LIGO project, for example, has failed to detect the gravity waves predicted by relativity.<ref>http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html</ref> However, more than twenty years of observing the [[pulsar]] pair PSR 1913+16 have shown its orbital period to be dropping at exactly the rate expected due to loss of orbital energy by gravitational radiation <ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html</ref>, resulting in the 1993 Nobel Prize for physics being awarded to the discoverers of the pulsar pair, Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse.

There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views, and there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.<ref>Although the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|liberally biased Wikipedia]] contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like ''The Economist'' recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Relativity Theory of Relativity] omits one word of criticism.</ref> Physicist [[Robert Dicke]] of Princeton University was a prominent critic<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref> of the theory of relativity and that may have hurt him professionally, even though his theory "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."<ref>"Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_bekenstein.html] </ref> Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was never awarded a Nobel Prize just as other outspoken critics of scientific theories were passed over in granting the Nobel Prize to less-accompished colleagues.<ref>Other examples of scientists denied Nobel Prizes due to their criticisms of scientific theories are Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] and Dr. [[Raymond Damadian]]</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

==External Links ==
:[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]

Bill Gates

2007-07-06T03:55:26Z

Horace3: Add ref. Remove speculation.

[[Image:Technet gates.jpg|right|frame]]
'''William (Bill) Henry Gates III''' (Seattle 1955 - ) American businessman. He is the richest person in the world since 1995 according to ''Forbes''<ref>http://www.forbes.com/business/2007/04/11/billionaires-helu-telecom-biz-cz_hc_0411helu.html</ref>. Founder and Chairman of [[Microsoft]] Corporation, he is seen as one of the entrepreneurs that made the personal [[computer]] revolution.

Gates began programming computers at age 13; in 1973, Gates entered [[Harvard University]]. There he developed a version of the programming language BASIC for the first microcomputer - the MITS Altair. In his junior year, Gates left Harvard to devote his energies to Microsoft, a company he founded in 1975 with his childhood friend [[Paul Allen]].<ref>http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/billg/bio.mspx</ref>.

His wealth is largely the result of the contract negotiated by his father's law firm with IBM for the operating system of the first personal computer. The contract gave Bill Gates' small company unusually advantageous rights. As the computer industry soared, Microsoft's unique position gave it monopoly power and profits. Two decades later, the Court of Appeals for the [[D.C. Circuit]] held that Microsoft had engaged in unlawful monopolistic behavior.

In 1995, Gates wrote "The Road Ahead" (with Nathan Myhrvold and Peter Rinearson), which embarrassingly omitted any mention of the internet in its first edition. In 1999, Gates wrote "Business @ the Speed of Thought".

Bill Gates has donated billions to a private foundation that his family controls. Because of his philanthropic activities Time magazine awarded him and his wife Melinda Gates, the "Person of the Year" for 2005 along with rock star Bono<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1142278,00.html</ref>. On 2004 he was honored as Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire.

Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates have three children, Jennifer Katharine, Rory John and Phoebe Adele. Gates likes to read and plays golf and bridge.

While Bill Gates has described himself as an [[atheist]], his wife Melinda Gates is a [[pro-life]] [[Catholic]] considered to be responsible for minimizing donations of the Gates wealth directly to fund [[abortion]].

The UK Independent reported on July 5, 2007 that Bill Gates "has acquired a major stake in a homosexual activist publishing company. ... The online material put out by the company features hard core homosexual pornography."<ref>http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jul/07070509.html</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Microsoft]]
*[[Debate:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?]]
*[[Economics Lecture Ten]] Antitrust Laws.
*[[Carlos Slim]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/billg/bio.mspx Bill Gates' profile at Microsoft site]
*[http://www.woopidoo.com/biography/bill-gates.htm Bill Gates Biography] Woopidoo, Biographies of business leaders.
*[http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm Bill and Melinda Foundation,]

== References ==
<references/>
*(1) [http://www.forbes.com/business/2007/04/11/billionaires-helu-telecom-biz-cz_hc_0411helu.html Gates] Forbes
*(2) [http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/billg/bio.mspx Microsoft]

[[Category:Businesspeople]]
[[Category:Americans|Gates]]

Medieval architecture

2007-07-02T03:12:59Z

Horace3:

{{Merge|Architecture}}
[[Image:Notre-dame.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The [[Notre Dame]] in [[Paris]]]]
Outstanding architecture in the Middle Ages was seen primarily in the construction of majestic churches, and consisted of two main styles: [[Romanesque]] and [[Gothic]].
==Romanesque==
Romanesque architecture was popular in Europe from about the 10th century to the 12th century and is characterized by barrel vaulting, thick walls and relatively small windows. The term "Romanesque" was first used in the 19th century.

==Gothic==
The Gothic style, developed later, consisted of taller, perpendicular structures, with long windows, pointed [[Image:rosewindow.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The [[Rose Window]] of the [[Notre Dame]]]]
arches and “flying buttresses” (stone supports on the outer walls of churches). Gothic architecture, with its tall, pointed spires is said to reflect the desire of people of the [[Middle Ages]] to grow closer to God, reaching towards heaven and away from the earth. Tall windows allowed sunlight to illuminate the interior,
unlike Romanesque architecture, in which windows were small and interiors were dim. A particularly stunning example of Gothic architecture is the [[Notre Dame]] in Paris, on which construction began in 1163 during the reign of [[Louis VII]]. The Notre Dame features a beautiful 'rose window'--another distinguishing characteristic of Gothic architecture.

[[Category:Art]]

Dueling

2007-07-02T02:51:42Z

Horace3:

Dueling was a savage practice requiring, as a matter of honor, a man to fight to the death anyone who challenged him. The challenge to a duel would typically arise from a perceived injury to one’s reputation, business, or personal life. An insult to one’s girlfriend or wife was also a common spark for dueling.

By tradition the person challenged to a duel had the choice of weapons, most commonly pistols but alternatively swords.

Although dueling was strictly prohibited by the [[Catholic Church]], it was common elsewhere in Europe and the United States until around the time of the [[American Civil War]]. Prosecutions for murder of persons victorious in duels is credited with ending the practice.

Participants in duels include:

*[[Alexander Hamilton]], who refused to shoot and was killed by [[Aaron Burr]]
*Alexander Hamilton’s son.
*[[Andrew Jackson]], who won several duels by killing his opponents.
*[[Abraham Lincoln]], who selected swords as the weapon and deliberately fought to a draw.
*[[Evariste Galois]], a brilliant mathematician killed at age 20 in his duel
*[[Stonewall Jackson]] refused to duel a military academy student who challenged him
[[category:History]]

Abstinence

2007-07-02T02:43:44Z

Horace3:

The word '''abstinence''' means refraining from indulging in an appetite.

In the 1800s and 1900s, the word "abstinence," used without other explanation, almost always meant abstinence from alcohol. The "abstinence movement," for example, led to the establishment of [[prohibition]]. ''Teetotaler'' meant someone who advocated "total abstinence," rather than just moderation.

Starting in about the 1990s, "abstinence" has been more commonly used in the context of abstinence from [[sexual]] intercourse, particularly in the United States in the context of [[sex]] education for adolescents. Thus, for example, we read in a 2002 White House policy statement:
:..."the goal of Federal policy should be to emphasize abstinence as the only certain way to avoid both unintended pregnancies and STDs."<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/welfare-book-06.html WORKING TOWARD INDEPENDENCE] Encourage Abstinence and Prevent Teen Pregnancy, White House News and Policies, February 2002</ref>

Studies of the effectiveness of abstinence programs have yielded differing conclusions. A 2004 study by the Heritage Foundation (a self-described "conservative think-tank")<ref>[http://www.heritage.org/about/ The Heritage Foundation: Our Mission] "Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."</ref> found that virginity pledges significantly reduce premarital sex without putting backsliders at risk.<ref> Teens Who Make Virginity Pledges Have Substantially Improved Life Outcomes
by Robert E. Rector, Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., and Jennifer A. Marshall
Center for Data Analysis Report #04-07 [http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/cda04-07.cfm] </ref> A study funded by the Administration of [[liberal]] President [[Bill Clinton]] through Mathematica Policy Research found that "the programs had no effect on the sexual abstinence of youth."<ref>[http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/abstinencereport.asp Impacts of Four Abstinence Education Programs]</ref> But this study reached this [[liberal]] conclusion by omitting abstinence education during the pivotal high schools.<ref>http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU07D09</ref>

[[Liberals]] oppose abstinence policies and [[Planned Parenthood]], a powerful liberal organization, profits from teenage sexual activity{{fact}}. Yet the facts are undisputed: abstinent teens do not get infected with STDs or become pregnant from having sex.

==Notes and references==
<references/>
[[category:education]]