Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Vertigo (film)

2013-08-20T02:04:44Z

JudyJ: I have seen it. You're right; it isn't clear. It was a Spanish mission

'''Vertigo''' is a [[movie]] directed by [[Alfred Hitchcock]] released in 1958. It stars [[James Stewart|Jimmy Stewart]] and [[Kim Novak]] as two "star-crossed lovers" whose love tears them apart. It is most famous for its final scene filmed in the bell tower of a Spanish [[Catholic]] mission, and for its haunting musical score by Bernard Herrmann.

==Plot==
The film begins with "Scottie" Ferguson, a [[police|police detective]] chasing a criminal across a city rooftop. During this chase, a fellow officer falls to his death, and Ferguson finds that his fear of heights has increased to a problem with [[vertigo]]. He has to retire from his police work as a result of his disability.

A former college friend of his, Gavin Elster, hires Scottie to spy on his wife Madeleine, telling him that she has been acting strangely and he suspects she may be suicidal. Scottie trails Judy to an [[museum|art museum]], where he watches her for three hours as she stares intently at a portrait of Carlotta Valdes, a Spanish matron who has been dead for more than two centuries. Then she goes and buys flowers and puts them on Carlotta's grave.

Scottie determines that Madeleine is depressed and that she is obsessed with a dead Spanish woman. After a few days of observation, Madeline travels to a ledge below the [[Golden Gate Bridge]] (a familiar backdrop in Hitchcock's films) and jumps over the edge. Scottie follows her in, and saves her. He brings her back to his apartment to recuperate, they speak, and she returns home.

The two see each other many times after that, and gradually fall in love. Scottie and Madeline work together on Madeline's mysterious fixation on Carlotta. In an effort to solve their mystery, they travel to Mission San Juan Bautista. Madeline runs away to a bell tower, and Scottie attempts to follow, but is delayed by his difficulty with vertigo. He reaches the top in time to see Madeline's body on the roof. Scottie faints.

At the inquest, Scottie testifies that he saw Madeleine fall to her death. Gavin Elster is awarded his wife's property, and leaves for [[Europe]].

Scottie mopes about for a month or two, until one day he spots a woman who looks exactly like Madeline. Her name is Judy. Judy explains her past as being a normal girl from Kansas. After Scottie leaves, Judy writes a letter to him, explaining that she was hired to impersonate Madeline as part of a plot to allow Gavin Elster to murder his wife. Judy destroys the letter as she finishes writing it.

Scottie pursues Judy, and they cultivate a relationship. Scottie makes recurring efforts to transform Judy into Madeline, by forcing her to wear the same clothes, to arrange her hair and makeup to resemble his deceased love. Judy seems to be uncomfortable with this, but ultimately concedes to his requests.

Scottie notices that Judy has a specific piece of jewelry that Madeline wore, and puts together what has happened.

Scottie takes Judy back to the old mission bell tower, wanting to re-enact Madeline's death. They argue, and eventually Judy confesses to loving Scottie. A nun appears in a nearby door, startling Judy, who stumbles backwards, falling to her death.

[[Category:Thrillers]]
[[Category:Movies]]

User talk:AlanE

2013-01-02T03:56:40Z

JudyJ: /* Thanks */ new section

{{welcome}}

In case you weren't aware, typing four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) after a comment automatically produces your signature. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you...I'm new in town, so to speak.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:44, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: AlanE, thanks for your contributions. I just gave you blocking powers so that you can block the accounts of vandals yourself, as soon as you see them. Thanks much and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:16, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. Appreciated. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:14, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== Categories ==
Alan, I think your comments on the monarch categories are good, and would encourage you to fix the categories as you see fit. It seems to me, since this is such a new project, that a lot of things got categorized willy-nilly style (which is understandable), and anything we can do to set things straight, I think it is better sooner than later. I think you'll notice a lot of redundant categorization on some articles too that need cleaned up. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 19:48, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

*Personally, I would check with a Sysop before doing what Colest is suggesting, especially removal of categories. Okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:49, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

==Email==

Unless there's a bug in the software, then, "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users."

Although we do not require an email address, refusing to supply one is one of several factors which can add up to grounds for banning your account. If you really support the goals of this project, why not take a couple of minutes to create a free yahoo or account and put it in your preferences? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:42, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

*Ed, check your preferences page. It was changed by Webmaster many months ago. ;-) --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:52, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
**Yes, I see that now, Terry: "E-mail (required): Enables others to contact you through your user or user_talk page without needing to reveal your identity."

OK. I will go back and change the email address in my Preferences. Hang on. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:15, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
I have changed it to the address stated at the bottom of my user page and hit the "Mail confirmation code" even though I never got one. I did get the following though: A confirmation code has already been e-mailed to you; if you recently created your account, you may wish to wait a few minutes for it to arrive before trying to request a new code.

This wiki requires that you validate your e-mail address before using e-mail features. Activate the button below to send a confirmation mail to your address. The mail will include a link containing a code; load the link in your browser to confirm that your e-mail address is valid.

The above is what I have always received...right from day one. Maybe my geriatric brain is missing something. Ban me if you wish, but it must be obvious by now I am not refusing to supply it. It is sitting there in my User Page. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:30, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:Don't be silly. It's not grounds for banning: Terry says I was wrong. But have you tried this link? http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Emailuser/AlanE --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:36, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, Ed; but it tells me I need a valid email address!! Perhaps I should go away and come back as someone else... throw off AlanE and don the cloak of, um, how about Guddle. The IP address will be the same, but if I start from scratch, you (CP) will hopefully send me a confirmation code which I can send on its way (rejoicing or not) and I will be legitimate, so to speak. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:50, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:You can get a free email address from Yahoo. Send me an email from your new account when you're set up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:54, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

No, Alan...get at me on AIM if you have it, mine is on my user page. You need to fill in the box on your preferences here, AND check the box below, to the right! :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:37, 7 August 2007 (EDT)--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:37, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

==Re Buglar's "debate"==

Bugler; I would qualify for banishment. I am a non-believer in your brand of faith. I also consider myself to be pretty middle of the road in social and political matters, being conservative in some issues and left of centre in others, but certainly do not consider myself Conservative. (In other words I am normal.) I am neither American nor British. I follow the tenets of Christ's teaching and the Commandments without any of the trappings nor the passionate narrowness of orthodoxy of belief that says "we are always right and everyone else is always wrong". I do not attend a church. Too many good and wonderful people have died because that. I am known as a "man of goodwill". I know there are many others like me in Cp. I joined for the sake of the homeschoolers and others who I thought, in my vanity it now seems, might benefit from the breadth of my knowledge and my desire to share it.

Except for a long break enforced by ill-health, I have been editing since early May last year. I work at giving articles in my chosen fields, of a substance that I would have found useful in my teens when I was starting my love affair with history and classical music half a century ago. I believe passionately in historical veracity - and as much as anyone I have repaired the fun and games of historical parodists and mistakes as I have found them. (I fixed two blatant pieces of misinformation yesterday…both well over a year old.)
Go through my edits and you will see what I mean. I am actually trying to create a viable encyclopedia.

I know I am blowing my own trumpet, Bugler (um), but there is a reason - there are a lot of us here that are doing this sort of graft, many of whom would qualify for banishment under your “proposal”. More and more, Conservapedia is becoming a blog, and less “The Trustworthy Encyclopedia” – your proposal would finish that process.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:14, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

== Notice ==

We need to close night editing early tonight. Hope to see you early tomorrow morning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:29, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

== Portuguese names ==

Ok, I will review some of the Portuguese names. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 20:47, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
==Trade winds==
You're welcome...BTW, be sure to make comments on people's TALK page, the user page is for personal use. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 10:26, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

== Composers ==

Be my guest. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:22, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks...you may notice Chabrier has just arrived. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:27, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

== Richard Strauss ==

Some works are now lost. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 00:20, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== I hope you enjoyed your breakfast ==

I was not implying that you did not contribute to this encyclopaedia and apologise for giving that impression. The guilt lies elsewhere. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:33, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, I did. And thank you for this note.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:08, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Schumann ==

What is wrong with the pic?
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:45, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh 'ell! Sorry! I think I must have edited an old page. Um. If you want to revert it to your last edit, I'll do my last edit again in the morning....''Carefully'' this time. Sorry again. Gulp. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:23, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Sergei Prokofiev ==

Good work. Clap, Clap...!

Only a favor; Please save the valuable material that is already posted. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:32, 30 September 2008 (EDT
::Why? I made sure everything of value was transferred into my post. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:52, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

== Alfred Schnittke ==

How about an article on Alfred Schnittke?

You may use if you like: http://home.wanadoo.nl/ovar/schnopus.htm

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:48, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

::That's one from left field! I have some of his, but usually paired with Shostakovitch and the like. Viola I think. I'll have a go. Not today. I'm already late with the day's chores.
:::And I want you to think about the Prokofiev page. The double up looks a bit silly, seeing as pretty-well all the information parts of your edit are now repeats of mine. I may be back before 2pm (my time) but I doubt it. (You don't want to have a word with Andy about that do you?) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:28, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::The repeated pieces could be just a few but not all, and users sometimes prefer to have the cake sliced. So my advice is to have that section as it is now. I admire your work and hope this will encourage you to do your best. Andy, I am sure will be glad to hear from you, please go ahead. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:54, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

::::Ok and G'morning. (It's too early to say g'day.) Give me a few days to listen to Schnittke. He's not the sort the family would like to have filling the house at all hours so I have to be on my own. He's not easy listening, but neither is Shostakovitch whom I adore!
BTW. The "''...will encourage you to do your best''" is a tad off. I left school nearly 50 years ago!
Cheers. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:26, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

==Brit==
Hehe, I was hoping that no one would notice me attempting to change the British spellings. Good thing you didn't rev the whole edit. o.O [[User:NathanG|Nate]] [[User_talk:NathanG|my opinion matters?]] 15:02, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:I was in the middle of a grump when the above came in. And why shouldn't I have a bet each way on refering/referring? BTW...what was the point of putting a single very alone reference under "References"? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:12, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

==Monarchs==
Thanks for taking up the challenge to complete the red-links in the English Monarchs navbar. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 14:20, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

:I'll get there in the end...I'm on other things for a while (suffering from a surfeit of Ethels) but I'll be back to them. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:30, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

==Redirects==

I commented on the music page you edited, but just so you know, it's always better to link to the actual page (where possible) than to link to a redirect, just because redirects can be broken, and they are harder to fix then straight links. That is, if the National Association of How To spell set out a new rule that Bach should be spelled Back, you can make one change (on the actual page with the data), and not have to worry about all the redirects. otherwise, you manually have to rewrite a bunch of redirect pages. It does mean spelling out the whole name "J.S. Bach|Bach", but in the long run, it's "better". Or so the world says. grins. --JeanJacques 18:04, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

== Christopher Wren ==

Thank you! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 13:20, 2 November 2008 (EST)

:I was thinking about the big gap between 2nd and 14th centuries overnight...but all I could remember was Henry Yvele (or Yevele) who did some of the Perpendicular stuff. (Canterbury Cathedral at least.) I think he was 14th century though. I will chase down the fella who built Edward I's Welsh castles - he's in the back of my mind somewhere but refuses to peek out. I have half a mind on it whilst I do private stuff. If I think of anyone I'll put it on the "Famous Architects" talk page. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 13:36, 2 November 2008 (EST)

:: Please do. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:46, 2 November 2008 (EST)
:::I have already...[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:51, 2 November 2008 (EST)

== !!!! ==

Oi!

Leave my edit to scottish monarchs alone, i put the link around the dates for a reason you know!!!!
thanks a lot for making me loads of extra work! :( --[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 16:11, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Or shall i put it simply, LEAVE IT ALONE!!! (i know about your work on some scottish monarchs, and i agknowledge them, dont worry.) --[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 16:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:Smile and say please when you say that. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:31, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:: -sigh- :) --[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 16:34, 5 November 2008 (EST)

::: I aim to have this list complete by the end of the week , so please dont interfere until the list is complete, then please (note: please) do either tell me on my talk page, or on the scotland talk page if you want to take bits off it, thanks--[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 16:39, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==List==

====Monarchs of Scotland====
*[[Malcolm II]] (1005-1034)
*[[Duncan I]] (1034-1040)
*[[Macbeth]] (1040-1057)
*[[Malcolm III (1057-1093)
*[[Donald Bane]] (1093-1094)
*[[Duncan II]] (1094)
*[[Donald Bane]] (1094-1097)
*[[Edgar]] (1097-1107)
*[[Alexander I]] (1107-1124)
*[[David I]] (1124-1153)
*[[Malcolm IV]] (1153-1195)
*[[William (The Lion)]] (1165-1214)
*[[Alexander II]] (1214-1249)
*[[Alexander III]] (1249-1286)
*Margaret ([[Maid of Norway]]) (1286-1290)
*[[John Baliol]] (1292-1296)
*Robert I (Robert Bruce]]) (1306-1329)
*[[David II]] (1329-1371)
'''House Of Stuart'''
*[[Robert II]] (1371-1390)
*[[Robert III]] (1390-1406)
*[[James I]] (1406-1437)
*[[James II]] (1437-1460)
*[[James III]] (1460-1488)
*[[James IV]] (1488-1513)
*[[James V]] (1513-1542)
*[[Mary Queen of Scots]] (1542-1567)
*[[James VI]] (1567-1625) ([[James I]] of England (1603-1625)

The problem now is I can't seem to link Edgar...It may need an official disambiguation page. If I were more computer literate..... [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:36, 9 November 2008 (EST)

== Don't pollute a talk page ==

Don't pollute a talk page with a personal attack, like what you just did on [[Talk:Barack Obama]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:54, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:I quote:''We are trying to build an encyclopedia here. Either help out or get out of the way, HGridley. You might find more people who think you are funny on a liberalpedia, if one exists.''

''The only truly funny thing about your note is that you call them "cantidates", which is a true record of how liberals treat Black Americans -- telling them "You can't, so depend on the government to do so for you." BHarlan 18:29, 10 November 2008 (EST)''

In my eyes, that is also a personal attack. I also consider that BHarlan's edits are, in the main, not particularly encyclopedic. That is my opinion only of course. I suppose I get a bit crabby at people who come and spend nearly all their time on variations on the same theme whilst I am getting up at four in the morning to find the time to do what I do here...which is 99point something per cent true encyclopedic. Can you deny I am trying to actually build an encyclopedia. If you think I am unproductive then ban me. if you agree I am productive then please give me at least some of the same leeway you extend to those you agree with. Cheers[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:26, 10 November 2008 (EST)

: AlanE, in hockey the third person who enters a fight is ejected. You jumped into a dispute with your own personal attack. Don't pollute a talk page like that.

: Moreover, BHarlan's comment was informative and appropriate. I found HGridley's prior comment to be offensive, despite my warning.

: Your substantive edits are appreciated. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::And don't feel bad about being singled out as a 'polluter'. Often we choose to speak to the person who has shown the greatest maturity, so a person who is already setting a good example can show an even better one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:00, 30 November 2008 (EST)

== Clausell ==

Thank you!

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:54, 14 November 2008 (EST)

== Artists ==

Done, thanks. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:22, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:Thank ''you''! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:30, 20 November 2008 (EST)

:: AlanE, please, who are those two great composers that are left? I am planing to have two composers sections to have classical along. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:23, 21 November 2008 (EST)

:::Brahms and Handel are usually considered right up there at the top.
:Film composers are a funny breed...they use the classical idiom, but its usually up to a century old. The battle scene at the start of "Gladiator" is so much like "Mars" from "The Planets" that it must be a template. The last battle in "Troy" harks back to the "Battle on the Ice" scene in Prokofiev's "Alexander Nevsky". The main phrase in the scene where Superman takes Lois for a fly in the first Superman movie, is a direct pinch from a phrase near the end of Richard Strauss' "Death and Transfiguration". They are very good at their job, but they are not "great" composers in the true sense of the word. Good, if not great composers have written film scores of course...Prokofiev, Shostakovich, William Walton, Vaughan Williams, Copland, Korngold, etc. (And did you know that the first music written specifically for a film was by Saint Saens?) but they were classical composers before they went near films.

Cole Porter, Gershwin, Berlin, Mercer, etc. were great but they were not "classical". They need their own classification. When popular composers try and write something classical (like Meredith Wilson's symphonies, or Leroy Anderson's piano concerto) it never quite gets there. I can think of only one who sits comfortably as a true classical composer whilst feted also in the popular idiom and that Leonard Bernstein. I will now go back into my hole. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:02, 21 November 2008 (EST)

:: Thank you for your reply. I like Brahms and Händel, but are they as famous as Chopin? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:14, 22 November 2008 (EST)

G'morning, Joaquín. Chopin wrote just for the piano. Apart from a couple of piano concertos and a cello sonata that is all he is known for....solo piano music. Some of the best ever written and much of it of an emotional intensity that can grab you. And for that - as well as for a strange sort of relationship with a strange sort of woman (George Sands) - he has grabbed the imagination of the public's attention (and Hollywood's) as one of the "great" composers. Which he is...''for the piano''.

Handel is known as one of the top 2 high baroque composers. People say "Bach and Handel" in the one breath - he is that good. Completely different in temperament and style in his output of course - he made and lost fortunes writing for the stage. But posterity owes him as much for his concerti grossi, organ concertos, chamber works, the two suites for augmented military band that have come down to us as the ''Water Music'' and ''Fireworks Music'' (one of which caused the first recorded traffic jam in history) his anthems and other church music, keyboard music - the lot. He is a part of every British coronation: and Christmas and Easter would not be the same in the English speaking countries without the enumerable ''Messiahs'' popping up, not only in concert halls but churches and town halls, and parks - many of them amateur productions. Grass roots stuff. I bet you that you can hum more Handel tunes than any other classical composer. He is part of the fabric of western culture right down to the farmer who turns up at his church hall to rehearse a bit of Handel for the service on Sunday.

As is Brahms, but in a different way. Brahms ain't "popular". Just great. When I say popular I mean amongst the general classical-illiterate public. And he is not for the young....you seem to grow into Brahms with age. He is recognised, though, as one of the truly great composers of "pure music"; that is music not written to a program. He is also considered the true symphonic heir to Beethoven. Like Bach and Handel mark the peak of the high baroque, and Beethoven the classical era, Brahms represents the pinnacle of the Romantic period. After him the movement started breaking up. He wrote four of the 20 great symphonies, two of the twenty great piano concertos, one of the top 4 violin concertos; he is one of the top 5 most popular writers of chamber music. His "Requiem" is in the top 5. He is one of the top four 19th century song composers. Pianists enjoy his many short piano pieces. He is second to none as a writer of "variations". When he died there was a state funeral and procession through the streets of Vienna attended by foreign heads of state...not to mention scores of thousands of ordinary citizens.

Are you sorry you asked? If you're going to hit me at 4:30 in the morning with something close to my heart.... :-) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:06, 22 November 2008 (EST)

: Excellent Alan, a very rich dissertation! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:38, 23 November 2008 (EST)

:: Thanks again! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:37, 1 December 2008 (EST)

== Ship ==

Done, it has been a pleasure my friend! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:55, 8 December 2008 (EST)

== Happy Holiday ==

The same to you my dear friend. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:34, 19 December 2008 (EST)

== Merry Christmas! ==

Merry Christmas!----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 07:02, 25 December 2008 (EST)>>>
:....And to you, Philip. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 13:22, 25 December 2008 (EST)

== Categories ==

Please only use the subcategory and not the categories above it when applying categories to articles. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:28, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Um...I gather the problem is with Wars of the Roses. Which Cat. should I not have put it under? I wanted it to be clickable from all three categories. HNY. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:17, 31 December 2008 (EST)

==Scotland's History==
What's your opinion of that Neil Oliver series on TV at the moment? [[User:Bradlaugh|Bradlaugh]] 18:40, 5 January 2009 (EST)
:Mate... I'm writing from wildest Tasmania. We're still watching Hamish Macbeth down here (albeit for the third time). If its not tabloid, I will look forward to it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:50, 5 January 2009 (EST)
Ah... if it gets on to BBC World (if indeed that is still going) you might give it a go. As a staunch (if adopted) Northumbrian I like to see what the neighbours are up to! [[User:Bradlaugh|Bradlaugh]] 18:51, 5 January 2009 (EST)

== Your work ==

Nice to see such a good work. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:10, 18 January 2009 (EST)
:Thanks Joaquín. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:20, 18 January 2009 (EST)

::Indeed, Alan, your help in untangling Scotland hasn't gone unnoticed! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:23, 18 January 2009 (EST)
:::Yes..t'was a bit out of ''kilter''. (Ahem) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:32, 18 January 2009 (EST)

== Conservapedia:[[Featured articles]] ==

Dear friend. You are invited to participate in: [[Conservapedia:Featured articles]]. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 16:23, 1 March 2009 (EST)

:Thank you Joaquín; it is appreciated - but for all your kindness, I don't think any of my articles are good enough, or the ones that may be would not be of sufficient interest. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:31, 1 March 2009 (EST)

: I think some of your articles should be considered. But I prefer to have you select one or two as you know them better than any other. Please? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 22:34, 2 March 2009 (EST)
::Um. Let me think....[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:48, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::: Umm, waiting! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 15:51, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

::::G'day, Joaquín. From the various comments on the Featured Articles talk page, I had gained the impression that those such as I were not likely to be welcomed so had stopped thinking about it. And frankly, I tend to think my articles are unsuited - wrong spelling, not enough references etc because usually I write from my own knowledge, I don't touch America, I don't follow any ideological line (as much as anyone can), I write to the old-fashioned reference book format without great lines and headings taking the eye away from the text and my articles tend to read as much like essays as wiki articles. Ya know wha' I mean? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:02, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Perhaps it would be beneficial if you stopped with the supposition? You were invited to participate first, and then my friend Joaquín brought up the subject of including some of your own articles. Two separate ideas. The main thing that is/was happening with "Featured Articles" is that the original idea was to have a committee decide, not some community vote, as that always leads to parodists and trolls disrupting, and that is why I locked the page. And if you are participating, I will certainly unlock it. The page needs further tweaks to make clear other's suggestions should be on the talk page, and only member's should vote. I hope you will choose to help out, all of us do, but of course that is your decision, Alan. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:51, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
:Okay. If I can help I will. Thanks. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:10, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

== From a new musician/editor on CP ==

Hi AlanE! I've just made some substantial changes to the "Arnold Schoenberg" article. The history of his stylistic evolution was a little inaccurate, in that the 12-tone phase didn't start until after 1923. This means also that "Pierrot Lunaire" was actually part of his "free atonal" period. If you think this needs a reference to back it up, I'd be happy to find one. Cheers! [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:59, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
:No problems. (I think.) I am not an atonal fan so I probably tend to lump atonal and 12-tone together somewhat in my brain. I think though that he had the 12-tone down pat by 1923 having worked on it on the quiet (if that is not an oxymoron) for the previous 8 or so years.
::One thing, though. I am protective of my British (Aussie actually} spelling. :-) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:10, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
:::As you have every right to be! Just to be clear, Schönberg wrote "On the composition with 12-tones" in 1923, and his first compositions to utilise it were published in the same year. There were several years of development, as Schönberg makes clear in his article, but the first evidence appears in this year.[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 19:26, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Sorry, the article was published in 1941. My bad.[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 20:00, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:::Blimey, mate! No! Alan, do you see a citation about the 12-tone phase? I don't. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:14, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Just added one, TK.[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 19:26, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::Terry, in the biography net reference under 1923 it is alluded to sufficiently clearly for me to be satisfied I suppose...... ''"Introduces a “Method of Composing with Twelve Tones Which are Related Only with One Another”, which revolutionizes the traditional concept of harmony by means of a new classification of musical material and therewith lays »the foundations for a new procedure in musical construction which seemed fitted to replace those structural differentations provided formerly by tonal harmonies.« (»Composition with Twelve Tones« 1941)"'' That's what I based my acceptance on. Thanks. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:35, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Ahh, so it is only a matter of making the citation line note that specific section, so as not to present the reader with an endless scroll, not knowing where to look. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:10, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
:I'd be happy to do that, if I knew how. Is there a place in the help section that explains this?[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 07:37, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

::If you added the reference by using the ref deal, add the URL within it, and after the end of it, make a space, and add the comment that Alan did, would be easy enough. Like: [www.xyz1234.com Under 1923, it says "Introduces a “Method of Composing with Twelve Tones Which are Related Only with One Another]. That help? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:05, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Sure, thanks.[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:50, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

Something completely different, AlanE. I'm interested in adding images as musical examples to some of the musical terms pages. Would you help me with this?[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:58, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
::: Attended. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 16:10, 17 March 2009 (EDT) Thanks!![[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:12, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

:Sorry to be late answering. I was late logging on this morning (It's a little after 6AM here.) I'm also sorry that I can't help with uploading pictures...there are certain protocols and restrictions and I have never really tried to find out. (Though one day I must, if I am still around) Go to Help Index on the left there. Also[[:User talk:Joaquín Martínez]] is a senior sysop who loves his pictures and is usually helpful. Mention my name ;).[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:27, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
::Thanks for the advice. By the way, I just left a note for you under the Prokofiev article.[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:37, 17 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Just seen it, thanks. Gotta go. Have appointments.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:43, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

Your thoughtful response in the Prokofiev thread got me reading again (dangerous hobby, I know), and revisiting the old books about music in the Soviet Union. I've started to expand the Shostakovich article, and am interested in your feedback. I plan to do the same with Prokofiev, and even perhaps write an essay on the topic. Let me know what you think.[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 19:55, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

==Just for fun==
Good morning. I added a "trivia" section to [[J.S. Bach]], including an amazing story that my doctoral advisor just told me. Thought you'd appreciate it, being a history buff yourself. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:24, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks; enjoyed it. I've always found it interesting that Beethoven considered Handel to be the greater of the two. Then again how many know Louis Spohr who was considered at the time to be greater than Beethoven?
:I am about to let loose with St. Matthew Passion. Please do with it as you will. I know you can improve it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:10, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
::Ahh, yes, I should probably mention it on the page too, but Von Swieten also brought Handel with him to Vienna; I had a hard time working it in in a relevant way. The quote from Mozart's letter to his father is something to the effect of "I go often to Swieten, where only Bach and Handel are played." My personal theory is that Beethoven was too close to Bach to effusively praise him -- a father complex, maybe?? My dissertation (still in the research phase) actually will discuss how Beethoven inherited several of his ideas about [[key]] characteristics from the Well-Tempered Clavier, the Mass, and the Passions.
::Ahh, Spohr. That's where weasel words get their name. Of course he "was considered" to be greater than Beethoven at one time, but by whom? Tovey writes about Spohr dismissively (in ''The Main-Stream of Music and Other Essays'', a great book if you happen upon it) by saying that his examples of sonata form, and only his and Hummel's, embody perfectly the academic definition of sonata form, and this is where many theorists got the wrong idea. You will find no examples from Mozart, Haydn, or Beethoven in sonata form as we learn at the conservatories. Conservatism always finds an enthusiastic audience.
::It's also worth remembering that Beethoven's late works disturbed all but his most ardent supporters. Out of the romantics, no one until Wagner felt sympathy enough to champion them: if you want to do some fun influence-spotting, listen to the slow movement of Beethoven's Op. 127, and immediately after that the duet from Act II of ''Tristan'' ("O sink hernieder, Nacht der Liebe"). [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:19, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
::Oh duhh! I forgot that I actually mentioned Handel! [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:23, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
:::I think the last time I read somewhere of the "greatness" of Spohr (and please realise that my comment above was sarcastic - ''of course'' Spohr had no viable claim of greatness) was in a comment about [[Charles Villiers Stanford]] who said once that he could remember when Spohr was considered such. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:50, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

==St. Matthew Passion==
I've done my thing with it, and am quite happy with it as it stands momentarily -- though I still might like to add a section on famous recordings. Take a look and see what you think.
It also could use a nice image, perhaps some artwork appropriate for the subject. I'll give a holler to Joaquin about it.
[[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 11:59, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:It's excellent, and shows scholarship!
:As far as famous recordings go, I am looking into them. (And yes, I'll mention Sir Georg's! - fancy having Kiri and Anne Sophie on the same bill. And if the sound is anything like his 1981 Mahler "Resurrection".......)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:11, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

::Glad you like the additions. It was a fun way to spend my afternoon. Joaquin has added several pictures per my request, and also nominated it as a Featured Article.
::The Solti recording is pretty special, and one that both sides of the "authentic performance" argument could find something to like and something to disparage. My only quibble is that Blochwitz as the Evangelist gets a little screechy for my taste. One particlar pregnant pause (and the crashing organ chord that comes after) in "Sind Blitze, Sind Donner" is one of my top 10 favorite moments on any disc period.
::By the way, also notice that I un-reddened the Category:Musical Works, which now only contains the Messiah (still unfortunately a stub) and this page. Just letting you know, in case you know of other pages that might fit. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 18:30, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Just saw your new "recordings" section, and am thrilled! I'm glad that you added some perspective and opinion to this section, so that anyone interested enough to run out and buy a recording could have an idea of the issues with Baroque recordings in general. I fixed a few spelling things, but otherwise agree with the inclusions. I might have added Klemperer's to the list myself. My only other point is that it might be better to also name the orchestras involved instead of just the conductors. It could get cumbersome to list everything, but in most cases it's useful information for someone seeking out the recording. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 19:32, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
:Will do [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:54, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

== Guard Dog ==

Sorry he was acting out this morning....highly unlike him, actually, unlike me! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:39, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

Terry - it's not that. I'm a dog lover from way back, and they occasionally make a mess. It's everything else. ''You'' know I'm not a vandal. So does JM. So do every senior Admin I've spoken to.

::Except Andy.

Yesterday, I not only did a word count of my edits, I did a word count of the, um, "non-opinion" edits of various others. Even Jpatt's hagiographies didn't come close to the amount of new input I had done that month. In fact, if you take away the copy-and-pastes of countries and art and US ships and that sort of thing, I have probably contributed more new old-fashioned encyclopedic uncontroversial information to this site than any other editor. If you go just a day either side of the offending "athletics" to "sports" edit, (24rd, I think) I did major new articles totalling over 1500 words.
:I made my night-editing request so I had more time to do more work. That's all. No other reason. After all, midnight there is 2PM here in September (and now). I was amazed when I couldn't get it. I was even more amazed at the reason - which I only found out recently, and which made me angry, for obvious reasons.
:Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:26, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

::Well, I am in the dark about that, so perhaps it isn't true, but not the place to discuss such things, so email me, if you want. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:04, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

::: According to what I have learned from your edits, you have helped Conservapedia in an important way. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:05, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Thank you, Joaquín! - [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:47, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

"Your considerable efforts might be more appreciated at www.astorehouseofknowledge.info. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:59, 18 April 2009 (EDT)"

==Restoring page==
This block expired in April <s>2011</s> 2010; I have no idea why the user page was deleted. Sorry for the inconveniece. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 10:07, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

== Look who is back! ==

How've you been? [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 17:47, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

::Hi Wes!!
::Hanging on in there. I think I owe you a Christmas greeting or three. Went away a bit for a while there. Good to see your greeting! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:05, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== British Inventions page ==

Thanks for your contributions! [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 16:38, 7 July 2012 (EDT)

Thanks. It's fun. I was adding a few when you wrote. Brits haven't invented the '''really''' important things, though - the stubby cooler, the cardboard wine cask and beach cricket, all of which can be seen together on a warm weekend arvo. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:24, 7 July 2012 (EDT)

== oops ==

Yeah I know he was, seems I forgot to put that bit back, sorry ! --[[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 21:56, 13 October 2012 (EDT)
:No problem - go Webber! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:58, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

== Congratulations ==

Congratulations! Your account has been promoted to night editing, blocking and SkipCaptcha.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 23 October 2012 (EDT)

== Free Speech ==

By the way that debate you remembered me having on free speech is here. [[Debate: Should Westboro Baptist Church be allowed to protest funerals as free speech?]] I had forgotten about it, but having read it again I stand behind everything I said. Gotta take your lumps, good and bad, otherwise you haven't got free speech. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 20:30, 7 November 2012 (EST)

:So you should. There is a small problem though for me... there is common or garden civility, decency, empathy, whatever. "''I know it's his funeral, Mrs Smith, but your husband really was a cheating cad''" is not the way to go and this can be extended to political discourse. Whilst those bastards at Westboro should have the right under law to do the hurt that they do, there is no way I will accept their moral justification. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:27, 7 November 2012 (EST)
::Yes. I think that is a given, but perhaps it should be spelled out explicitly. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:25, 7 November 2012 (EST)
:::I have not the facility, these days, of speller-outery ( a reference to my much missed mother who considered herself a "looker-upperer" way into her nineties and used me (per telephone) in her later years as her main reference source.) I think, mate, that you can extract from the bones of my statement above that I do not agree with the use of malice in a political statement - though my grumgy-old-manliness can be frequently construed as such. Unfortunately these days, my knowledge exceeds my ability to expound it appropriately. Luckily. I usually wander the outer reaches of the CP galaxy where few of the more political, or overtly religious, editors go. Or if they do, they haven't the faintest interest in what I am talking about. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:44, 8 November 2012 (EST)

== Request ==
This request is in ignorance, but as you are currently logged on, I was hoping you might unlock [[Karl Rove]] so I might made the additions mentioned on the talk page. Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 21:55, 8 November 2012 (EST)
: Only Sysop's can protect and unprotect pages. I suggest you ask Karajou, Ed Poor, JPatt, Aschafly or Conservative to unlock the page [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]]
::Thank you for your advice. [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 22:07, 8 November 2012 (EST)

==Attention Dvergne==

Is that a Gallic way of answering a question or is it too much FourX? Or you're engrossed in the cricket? Deleting my question and answering in the summary is not polite. Even for a FNQer. :-) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:19, 8 November 2012 (EST)

== Block ==

What was that for ? Because of that I couldn't block those vandals and had to spend more time cleaning the mess up. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 21:56, 17 November 2012 (EST)

Settle down! Read my next edit and be amazed I had the sense of humour to say to you what I did. You used inappropriate language, OK? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:03, 17 November 2012 (EST)

== Blocking users for username ==

Alan when you block a user for his or her username, your edit summary indicates that they are allowed to recreate their account with an appropriate username, but the block settings you're using are preventing them from doing that. Make sure all boxes are unchecked as to not prevent account creation or block the IP.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:24, 28 November 2012 (EST)
:Will do. {{unsigned|AlanE}}
:: I think the block that Aaln gave for the user called Adm1nistrator was perfectly reasonable as that user would have almost certainly either been a troll or a vandal. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 00:50, 28 November 2012 (EST)
:::Thanks D. What Iduan has done, though, has made me aware of the varieties involved in the blocking policies. I had not really thought about it before. ...But thanks. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:57, 28 November 2012 (EST)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for putting in the good word for me. Alas, I won't have much time in the future to hang around here. And helping to police the place is not really something I'm good at or interested in. The vandal of attack or December 30, and my being in the middle of it, was just a freak accident.

I was amused by your characterization of "swinging lustily". Though that's not what it felt like. :-) [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 22:56, 1 January 2013 (EST)

User:JudyJ

2013-01-02T03:51:01Z

JudyJ: Bye for now.

<center>INACTIVE </center>

I'm a physics student at a large state university.

I'll put in more info, and maybe a few "user boxes", soon.

Christmas vacation is over. I will probably not be contributing here in the near future. Please try to keep the "counterexamples to relativity" page from getting overgrown with ridiculous items.

While I am a Protestant, I find myself in nearly complete agreement with GregG's essay on creationism [[User:GregG/Answers_to_QE|here]], and I highly recommend it. If I had time, I'd offer some contributions to the "todo" sections.

==The vandal spree of December 29, 2012==
A few comments about the recent vandal spree that I was involved with.

A note in [[Talk:Main Page]] seems to suggest that some admins take delight in the recent vandalism attack, as though it vindicated Conservapedia's position on certain issues. I doubt that the sysops actually took delight in reverting all that, and I certainly didn't find my small part in that effort much fun. (Though it was, in a perverse way, exciting being in the middle of all that.) Other people's hateful actions do not affect the correctness of, or vindicate, one's positions. They just show that those people are hateful. For example, I hate Kim Kong Un, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Bashar al-Assad, as I'm sure everyone here does. That doesn't vindicate al-Assad's war against his own citizens. The rightness of Conservapedia's positions on various issues is to be found in the writings of its contributors, not in the actions of vandals.

That note also contains the statement that "the general public is reading this". That is true; the talk page page has nearly half a million views. But a later note rails against "childish temper tantrums", and then bears a picture of John Wayne. What kind of impression is made on those people, most of whom are grownups, to see that?

==Evolution==
Here is why I accept evolution. This is intended as an adjunct to my answers to the "quantifying openmindness" test.

To be clear, I specifically mean Darwinian macro-evolution. This has nothing to do with cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, geological evolution, molecular evolution, or abiogenesis.

Simply put, the scientific evidence is utterly overwhelming, and becomes more so with each passing year. Even though we don't see direct evidence of macro-evolution happening before our eyes (though we do see micro-evolution happening with E. Coli bacteria, with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and with pesticide-resistant pests), the evidence is totally overwhelming. It is not necessary to see something with ones own eyes to be absolutely certain that it is true—no one has seen an electron, or a proton, or a neutrino, or a W+ boson.

Specifically, what the scientific evidence tells us is that '''Darwinian evolution is the correct explanation for the diversity of the tree of living beings'''. In Darwin's time, the evidence was somewhat circumstantial, and his claims were not totally buttressed by genetic evidence. This made his theory somewhat controversial, and the scientific community at large took some time to accept it.

But recent developments in genetics, particularly DNA sequencing, make the case overwhelmingly strong. The DNA evidence showing the genetic relationships, buttressed by the geological evidence showing the timelines of the various phyla and species, is unmistakable. And it is getting more so as time passes. Every few months I come across another article showing how DNA analysis has helped put another piece of the puzzle in place, explaining yet another aspect of the biological "family tree".

There are thousands upon thousands of books, articles, and journal papers explaining and discussing these points. One can go to any bookstore, especially college bookstores, and get a wealth of information on the subject.

==Other places to look==
Are there alternatives that need to be considered? Of course. One needs to be openminded about this. As part of my openminded investigation of this topic, I looked at what really ought to be a good source for alternative explanations—Conservapedia itself. Conservapedia is known to take an editorial stance against evolution, so it ought to be able to explain why evolution is wrong.

===Conservapedia's evolution page===
But Conservapedia's page on the subject is filled with fundamentalist religious material, crowding out any attempt at a decent scientific analysis. It just goes on and on and on with fundamentalism, along with digressions into obesity, bestiality, atheism, Communism, and other totally unrelated topics, along with pictures of Hitler, Stalin, various creationists, a Lion, ants, and cats. This is not the way to do science. Discussion of some stupid thing someone said about how "black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women" is not the way to do science. Filling the page with links to creationist or fundamentalist websites is not the way to convince people looking for scientific explanations.

===Conservapedia's front page===
So maybe the evolution page itself wasn't the right place to look. Surely a web site that is so strongly against evolution will give, or point to, some convincing argument. I looked at the main page. Sure enough, the left side has quite a number of links to various web sites (as of July 22):
*1 link referring to using technology to "overrun Darwinism"
*4 links relating to Nobel prize selection and creationists
*1 link relating to Adolf Eichmann and his beliefs relative to evolution
*4 links relating to the notion of a "young earth" and "young universe"
*1 link referring to Biblical creationism
*3 links to "evolutionary indoctrination"
*1 link to a "resource to refute evolutionists"
'''Every single one of these links is to a fundamentalist religious web page'''! Four are to a "blogspot" blog (which, in the first sentence, mentions its connection with "Creation Ministries International"), and the other 11 are to the "creation.com" web site. Conservapedia had 15 opportunities to make a scientific case against evolution in these front-page links, and threw them all away.

===Conservapedia's thermodynamics page===
There are other pages at Conservapedia that relate to this topic. One is the page on the second law of thermodynamics. It contains the claim that the second law disproves evolution. That is nonsense. (It also says that it disproves relativity, a claim which is even more nonsensical.) The scientific discussion on the page is totally confused and misguided, and appears to be written for the specific purpose of refuting evolution, rather than elucidating scientific points. It seems to make an all-encompassing claim that disorder never decreases anywhere, so evolution could not have happened. This is simply false. A number of people (including myself) have attempted to argue the case on the talk page, and those attempts were simply met with the steadfast refusal, by an admin, to allow this to be changed—"It's impossible to go into reverse ... Case closed."

In addition to the scientific discussion, the page has huge amounts of the usual irrelevancies—creationist web site discussion and links, a picture of a creationist, discussion of politics, and a quote from Genesis.

==="Intelligent design"===
Well, this is better than making an argument on purely Biblical grounds, but it still doesn't work. "Intelligent design" is well known to be creationism with religion scrubbed from it. It is widely believed that the point of this is to satisfy First Amendment principles about separation of church and state in scientific textbooks in school.

OK, fair enough. But, when Biblical arguments are removed, how good a case can be made? I looked at the [[www.intelligentdesign.org]] web site. It appears to make good on its promise not to use religious arguments. But its argument really boils down to this: The tree of life is too marvelous to have come into existence without some "intelligent designer" having made it happen.

This is a negative and totally unsatisfying argument. It really amounts to saying "because we don't [yet] understand how something works, we ascribe it to an intelligent being." This is not the way to do science. When you come across something you don't understand, you don't just throw in the towel this way. Thousands of things that were not understood at one time became understood later, through research and careful thinking. Such knowledge gaps as the evolution of eyes, or of bacterial flagella, or the failure to find certain transitional fossils, get explained all the time. There have been many cases of people claiming that certain transitional fossils are missing, and therefore evolution must be wrong, only to have the missing fossils found later. Science marches on.

There is no doubt that the universe in which we live is marvelous. Evolution is one of the marvels. The fine structure constant is another, as is the inhomogeneity of the universe just after the big bang, the strength of the strong force, the solubility of carbon dioxide, the crystal structure of water, and so on. Much has been written about the many seeming miracles that make the universe work and make life possible. (In the scientific literature, the phenomenon is often described as the "anthropic principle".) Unlikely or "miraculous" as the value of the fine structure constant might be, scientist don't just say that it isn't true. '''Biological evolution, like the value of the fine structure constant, may be marvelous or "miraculous", but it is nevertheless true'''.

Now we don't know why these things are true. Could it be that some intelligent designer made them so? Perhaps. But we don't say that, because we don't understand them, they aren't true. The marvelous/miraculous nature of the universe '''is really true'''. And that includes evolution. Did God cause all this to happen? Quite possibly. But it is not our place to second-guess just how He did it. That's for us to figure out. Using science.

So "intelligent design" is really just a cop-out. If you don't understand something, you don't just say that it can't be true.

If Conservapedia can't make, or point to, a case for believing evolution to be false, who can?

Sir Edmund Hillary

2012-12-30T03:10:40Z

JudyJ: rv vandalism

'''Sir Edmund Hillary''', KG KBE (1919-2008), is credited with the first successful ascent of [[Mount Everest]]. He reached the summit, along with his climbing partner, Sherpa guide Tenzing Norgay, on May 29, 1953. His death in 2008 was due to a [[heart attack]] after months of ill health. He received a State Funeral which is usually reserved for heads of state.
Sir Edmund Hillary was also the only living person, aside from [[Queen Victoria]], to appear on [[New Zealand]] [[currency]]. He is found on the [[New Zealand]] $5 bill.

==References==

* http://www.who2.com/edmundhillary.html
* Book: Sir Edmund Hillary: To Everest and Beyond, Author: Whitney Stewart

{{DEFAULTSORT: Hillary, Sir Edmund}}
[[Category: Mountain Climbers]]

User:AddisonDM

2012-12-30T03:07:43Z

JudyJ: rv vandalism

Hello, welcome to my user page! I have been an editor at [[Conservapedia]] since 2008 and an administrator since 2009. I've worked mainly on articles relating to [[Christianity]], [[environmentalism]], and [[politics]]. Check out some of my articles or essays!

{{User Sysop}}

==Articles I have edited:==

*[[Nineteen Eighty-Four]] (added Governmental Structure section)
*[[NASCAR]] (added new names of racing series)
*[[Indulgences]]
*[[Anthem]] (Completely revamped: added Major Plot Events and Society and Government)
*[[Steel]] (Added Andrew Carnegie's name)
*[[Selena Gomez]] (Added link to [[purity ring]] and specified that Selena wears one)
*[[Vegetarianism]] (Instigated the inclusion of citations where they were needed)
*[[Recycling]] (mentioned "reduce, reuse, recycle" slogan, made specification)
*[[Goth (subculture)]] (Fixed up grammar)
*[[Transubstantiation]] (Fixed up existing text, added new section)
*[[Nashville]] (Added new section)
*[[Essay:Greatest Church Hymns]]
*Improved [[Tyndale Bible]]
*[[Disputed Biblical Translations]] (added example of translating difference between Protestants and Catholics)
*Updated [[Al Franken]] (added latest news on the Senate race recount)
*[[Jeremiah Wright]] (Make redirects and fix citation error)
*[[List of 50 states]] (completely revamped with some help)
*[[Trans fat]] (Total rewrite)
*[[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] (Added [[democide]], [[fellow traveller]], and design by committee)
*[[Speciation]] (New section, relation to evolution)
*[[Old Earth]]
*[[Black Friday]] (Complete rewrite)

==Articles I have created:==

*[[Pump 'Em Up]] (organization to conserve fuel by inflating tires)
*[[Taylor Swift]] (Country music star)
*[[Jonas Brothers]] (popular boy band)
*[[Purity ring]] (symbol of commitment to remain chaste till marriage)
*[[Christine Cloud]] (Christian missionary attacked by gay activist)
*[[The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History]] (popular history book)
*[[Catholic Answers]] (Catholic apologetics apostolate)
*[[Real presence]] (Different Christian beliefs on the Eucharist)
*[[Landfill]] (Waste disposal method)
*[[Goodsearch]] (Search engine donating money to charities of your choice)
*[[Tripartite Pact]] (Pact creating Axis Powers of WWII)
*[[Contemporary Christian Music]]
*[[Music Row]] (Nashville music/entertainment district)
*[[Holy God We Praise Thy Name]] (Traditional Catholic hymn)
*[[Political cartoon]]
*[[The Message]] (Bible translation)
*[[Cotton Patch Version]] (''Very'' interesting Bible translation!)
*[[Orans]] (Position of prayer)
*[[Bernard Madoff]]
*[[Lauda Sion Salvatorem]] ([[Corpus Christi]] hymn)
*[[Kwanzaa]] (African American holiday)
*[[The Night Before Christmas]]
*[[Menorah]] ([[Jewish]] symbol and [[Chanukah]] candleholder)
*[[Jack London]] (Writer and novelist)
*[[Creation]] (Overviewing differing views on creation and giving bios of famous creationists)
*[[The Iron Heel]] ([[Dystopian]] novel)
*[[Natural-born citizen]]
*[[Chesley Sullenberger]] (pilot of plane crashed in [[Hudson River]])
*[[Obama-isms]]
*[[Resin identification codes]] (Symbols to identify plastics for recycling)
*[[Megachurch]]
*'''[[Conservapedia]]''' ('''Content article about CP''')
*[[Open mind]]
*[[Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation]]
*[[Stars and Stripes Forever]]
*[[Political Compass]]
*[[Pipe organ]] (stub, please expand)
*[[Mother of Divine Grace School]] ([[Homeschooling]] service)
*[[Composting]] (will expand)
*[[Know Homeschooling]] (A wiki about homeschooling)
*[[Nellie Gray]] (founder of [[March for Life]])
*[[The Teaching Company]]
*[[Seton Home Study School]]
*[[Ray Kroc]] (Entrepreneur behind [[McDonald's]])
*[[Wasabi]] ([[Japanese]] condiment)
*[[Generation Joshua]]
*[[Exodus Mandate]]
*[[Red Envelope Project]]
*[[Revelation (religion)]]
*[[Essay: Greatest political rivalries in American history|Greatest political rivalries in American history]]
*[[Anacyclosis]]
*[[Google Earth]]
*[[Apostles' Creed]]
*[[Foundation for a Better Life]]
*[[Freedom From Religion Foundation]]
*[[Larry Kudlow]]
*[[Interesterified fat]] (Type of processed oil)
*[[Melting pot]] (Cultural term)
*[[Priests for Life]]
*[[Randall Terry]]
*[[Tiktaalik roseae]] (Claimed transitional form between fish and amphibian tetrapods)
*[[Biogeography]]
*[[Polystrate fossil]]
*[[Darwinius masillae‎]] (new "missing link" fossil)
*[[Stasis (biology)]]
*[[Derived (evolution)]]
*[[Omphalos hypothesis]]
*[[Great Books Academy]] (homeschool curriculum)
*[[Calvert School]] (Private school and homeschool curriculum)
*[[List of homeschool curriculums]]
*[[Billy Mays]] (American advertiser)
*[[Philip D. Gingerich]] (Evolutionist, paleontologist)
*[[Closed communion]]
*[[Open communion]]
*[[Pakicetus]]
*[[Ambulocetus]]
*[[Vance Packard]]
*[[Planned obsolescence]]
*[[The Story of Stuff]]
*[[Pay as you throw]]

'''Essays:'''

*[[Essay: Deceptive Advertising]]
*[[Essay: Real Environmentalism]]
*[[Essay: Artificial Food]]
*'''[[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America|The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]]''' ('''Nominated and selected as Featured Article during Holy Week/Easter Week''')
*[[Essay:Justifying Justification by Faith and Works|Justifying Justification by Faith and Works]] (Essay supporting Catholic view of salvation)
*[[Essay:Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"|Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"]] (All the wonderful contributions made by vandals. If you know any, share them!)

'''Templates:'''

*[[Template:Bible Versions]]
*[[Template:Creation vs. evolution]]
*[[Template:Conservatism]]

'''Conservapedia Exclusives:'''
These are articles I've created which do not exist on Wikipedia:

*[[Pump 'Em Up]]
*[[Christine Cloud]]
*[[Holy God We Praise Thy Name]]
*[[Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation]]
*[[Mother of Divine Grace School]]
*[[Know Homeschooling]]
*[[Nellie Gray]]

[[Category:Christian Conservapedians]][[Category:Catholic Conservapedians]]

User talk:DonnyC

2012-12-30T02:50:07Z

JudyJ: /* vandal spree -- whew! I never expected to be in the middle of that! */ new section

<BIG><BIG><BIG><BIG><BIG><BIG><BIG><BIG><BIG><BIG>
HI XDD

== vandal spree -- whew! I never expected to be in the middle of that! ==

Thanks. I was wondering whether I should revert my own page again, or just continue cleaning up older pages that he wouldn't notice. Of course, it's much better with people who have the sysop tools to do mass reverts. And get past captchas, and, above all, block that guy. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 21:50, 29 December 2012 (EST)

User:AddisonDM

2012-12-30T02:47:30Z

JudyJ: rv vandalism. The captcha is a real pain. Is there a mediawiki extension that says reversion to something with OK links is OK?

Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-12-30T02:45:09Z

JudyJ: rv vandalism. So am I.

This is intended as an article rebutting the points in the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article. That article's talk page has proven to be less than satisfactory for this purpose, because it gets archived, and much of its material has degenerated into personal disputes. We believe that the two sides of the issue are better handled in two articles—this one and [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], rather than a talk page.

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

#''Computer simulations based on the theory of relativity predict far more black holes than are observed''.
#:The cited article says absolutely nothing about the ''number'' of black holes, modeled or observed. It is about a discrepancy between computer models predicting the ''masses'' of black holes at the centers of galaxies and the observed masses. The article suggests a heretofore-unmodeled mechanism whereby galaxy evolution would cause less mass to go into the black holes. The article in no way suggests that black holes don't exist.
#''The orbital radius of the Moon's orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts''.
#:This could be a counterexample to both GR and Newtonian gravity--in both, the radius is defined in terms of conserved quantities.
#::The objection has been raised that this would still be a counterexample to Relativity.
#:::Yes, if it were actually true that the Moon's orbit is undergoing some kind of anomalous perturbation, it would indeed be a disproof of Relativity, Newtonian mechanics, and, in fact, all of physics since Galileo.
#::::Actually, the average radius of the Moon's orbit is in fact increasing. By 38mm a year. This was first predicted in the late 19th century and actually measured since at least the early 1970's and more accurately thereafter thanks to the mirrors left for that purpose by the Apollo astronauts. The reason for this is well-known and simple enough to be explained on science-oriented TV shows from time to time. To put it simply: the Moon pulls on the Earth causing the tides and slowing down its rotation slightly, lengthening it's day by 2 milliseconds every 100 years. Reciprocally, the Earth pulls on the Moon and accelerates it slightly thus increasing the height of its orbit and energy is conserved. For a more complete explanation see <ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124</ref>. This behavoiur, predicted over 100 years ago, observed and measured, is in no way "anomalous" and relativity, general, special or otherwise doesn't really concern itself with tidal mechanics so on that point at least physics, Galillean, Newtonian and Einsteinian, are quite safe for now.
#''The Pioneer anomaly.''
#:The "Pioneer anomaly" is the deviation in the motion of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft from their predicted motion, at the distance of Saturn and beyond. It should be noted that the anomaly is about 1000 times greater than the difference between the classical Newtonian prediction and the prediction of relativity, so this is not a problem with relativity ''per se''; it is more general than that.
#:Calculating the force caused by heat (that is, miniscule amounts of infrared radiation) from the radioactive power source was one of the first effects that was examined. The anomaly arose when this and other known effects could not fully explain the deviation.
#:The problem is believed to have been solved by taking into account the reflection of the radiation from the power source off of the back of the antenna dish<ref>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/</ref>. The solution is sometimes described as an application of "Phong shading", a technique of computer graphics that is now considered imprecise. But Phong shading itself is not what is important. The "ray tracing" computer graphics technique that underlies Phong shading was what inspired the scientists to take reflection into account.
#''the solar flattening is ... too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation.''
#:This observation is interesting, but the predictions of oblateness come from analysis of fluid mechanics; relativity is not involved, and the cited paper makes no mention of relativity.
#:
#:We expect a very large rotating body to show oblateness according to well-known principles involving centrifugal force. This is particularly easy to observe with Jupiter, though the other planets, including Earth, show it too. Scientists do not know why the Sun exhibits nearly zero oblateness, but relativity is not believed to be the cause.
#:
#:Now it happens that there ''is'' a connection between solar oblateness and the calculation of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and that involves General Relativity. When checking the observed precession against the effect predicted by Relativity, one needs to subtract the effect of solar oblateness, along with the other effects, such as equinoctial precession and the gravitational effects of other planets. The effect of solar oblateness is a mere .0254 arcseconds per century, insignificant in comparison with precession (about 5500) and other planets' gravity (about 550). The figure of .0254 was calculated based on what fluid dynamics predicted, and was subtracted in the figures quoted below in item #9. When that tiny effect is removed, the error bars still overlap that for the GR prediction.
#''Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity. The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement''.
#:This is an interesting observation. The world's best scientific minds are looking into it. That relativity is incorrect is not being taken seriously as a possible explanation.
#:'''Update:''' The problem seems to have been caused by a faulty cable connection between a computer and a GPS unit. When the connection was repaired, the travel time increased by 60 nanoseconds, which had been the amount of the anomaly <ref>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/22/technology-faster-than-light-neutrinos.html</ref> <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/22/loose-wire-led-to-stunning-faster-than-light-particle-finding/?intcmp=features</ref>. The claims of faster-than-light neutrinos have now been refuted very thoroughly<ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html</ref><ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/once-again-physicists-debunk.html</ref>.
#:The objection has been raised that a recent news report from the BBC ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is also contradictory, since neutrinos have mass and are therefore forbidden by relativity to travel at exactly the speed of light. Since the neutrino energies were 17GeV, and the current estimate for the neutrino mass is about 0.25eV, the deviation from the speed of light would be about 1 part in 1022. This means that the neutrinos would arrive at the detector about .26x10-24 seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is one quarter of a billionth of a femtosecond, or about .26x10-15 of a nanosecond. The accuracy of the GPS units and cesium clocks used in the measurement is greater than a nanosecond, so the discrepancy cannot possibly be detected. It is unfortunate that the claim "the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos" was taken so literally.
#:::A "counter-rebuttal" has been made: ''The politicized rush to rehabilitate the Theory of Relativity was far from convincing, and the "resolution" was a clear statement that is flatly contrary to the Theory''. Just what statement is being referred to as the "resolution" is not clear, but our best guess is that it is the statement by Sandro Centro, quoted by Jason Palmer in the cited BBC article. As noted above, that statement is in error by about 15 orders of magnitude less than the resolution of the measurement. None of the assertions of relativity denies that anyone could ever make a statement that is not precisely correct.
#''Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").''
#:This may be another case of the Pioneer anomaly, or it may be something else. However, it is very unlikely that it shows that relativity is wrong and Newtonian mechanics is correct. Saying that, every time someone finds some phenomenon that is puzzling, that shows that relativity is wrong, is not a convincing way to do science. The cited paper is about unexpected behavior of some spacecraft as they use "gravity assists" in near-Earth flybys. The hypothesized causes involve errors in the mathematical models to calculate such effects as relativistic effects (the detailed calculation of them, not the question of whether they exist), tidal effects, Earth radiation pressure, or atmospheric drag. The paper suggests that most of those can be ruled out, though there could be round-off and integration errors, or errors in the spherical harmonic representation of Earth's gravity field.
#''Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "dark matter" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it due to the acceleration of various parts of galaxies that accelerated funny that led to dark matter (based on simple Newtonian dynamics)?
#''The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "dark energy" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:This is the dark energy/cosmological constant argument. The cosmological constant was added by Einstein after he discovered that his field equations (<math>\mathbf{G}=8\pi \mathbf{T}</math>) predicted that the universe was expanding, contradicting his firm philosophical belief in a static universe. So he inserted <math>\Lambda \mathbf{g}</math> to the LHS so that it would predict a static universe. A few years later, Hubble showed the universe to be expanding, and Einstein called the cosmological constant the worst mistake of his career. So, it sort of had a bad reputation, and people didn't want to seriously consider it, until recent observations have shown the universe's expansion to be accelerating forced them to do so. It could have had a very different history. Einstein could have had that term in the EFE's from the start, and pointed out that it would determine if the universe's expansion was accelerating (or not expanding at all!) and it would take further observation to determine its value.
#''Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.''
#:A footnote goes on to say that "In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01) ..."
#:Considering only the ''anomalous'' precession, that is, the precession that remains after all known other factors (other planets and asteroids, solar oblateness) have been accounted for, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values are:
#::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
#::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
#::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
#::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
#::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijpers 2008]]
#:These error bars, and that of the relativity formula, all overlap.
#:The formula for mechanics under general relativity is complicated, but it is not contrived or conformed. "Conformed" suggests that it was somehow adjusted or "tweaked" to match the 42.98 figure. The formula is
#:::<math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>
#:To begin to explain the formula, Newton's law of gravity, combining F = ma and <math>F = \frac{KMm}{r^2}\,</math>, is
#::<math>a = \frac{KM}{r^2}\,</math>
#:In Einstein's equation, <math>T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "stress-energy tensor", and <math>8 \pi T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> gives the density of the Sun, taking the place of <math>\frac{M}{r^2}\,</math>. <math>G_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "Einstein curvature tensor", and says how spacetime curves to create an apparent gravitational acceleration.
#:There is nothing to tweak to get a value of 42.98 arcseconds. 8 is 8. <math>\pi\,</math> is <math>\pi\,</math>. K is Newton's constant of gravitation in both formulas.
#:
#::::The above discussion notwithstanding, more sophisticated technology has measured a precession of 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01, which disproves the prediction of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Notice how publication of data stopped two decades ago when the observations diverged from the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
#:Measurements of planetary motion are now calculated relative to the "International Celestial Reference Frame" (ICFR), replacing the older, and much less accurate "equinoctial" frame. The older measurements got a value of about 5600 arcseconds/century for the precession of Mercury, nearly all of which (5025 arcseconds) was because of the rotation of the "equinoctial" frame. The ICFR frame removes that source of uncertainty, and, with the very accurate radar measurements conducted by NASA between 1987 and 1997<ref>[http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf]</ref>, gets a value of 574.10±0.65 arcseconds observed, in good agreement with the predicted 574.64±0.69 value.
#:
#:The ICFR is described in [http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Publications/TechnicalNotes/tn32.html this] document, dated 2003.
#''Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found. Sound like global warming?''
#:True, the ''direct'' searches for gravitational waves have not yet yielded any clear results, though indirect observations have been made (the Hulse/Taylor observations.) Before people dismiss indirect observations, recall that no one has ever seen an electron.
#:The Earth-based LIGO detectors have, so far, not detected any unambiguous gravitational wave signatures from such events as a black-hole merger. It is barely sensitive enough to find such things in the Milky Way or very nearby galaxies. It is being upgraded in a plan that should complete in 2014. It is hoped that, after the upgrade, it will be able to see these events clearly and unambiguously.
#:The space-based LISA detectors have not been built yet, and the original proposal has been scrapped because of budgetary problems. A new version, called "eLISA" has been proposed, and should be sensitive to events as far away as redshift 15.
#:Whether these experiments are a good use of money is another question, one that has no bearing on whether relativity is correct.
#::The objection has been raised that the experiments should not have been funded if scientists were going to ignore negative results.
#:::The results are only partly negative. The scientists knew all along that a certain amount of luck would be involved in finding a sufficiently strong signal within the time frame of the experiment. The failure so far does not mean that black-hole mergers do not emit gravitational waves; just that they haven't been lucky enough to find them. They will continue to search.
#:'''Update:''' Another, much more commonplace observation of gravitational wave emission has neen reported<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19408363 BBC article</ref>. The article suggests that, since it shows detectable gravitational waves are more common than previously thought, there is optimism that the eLISA detector, when completed, might find one source per week.
#:This has nothing to do with global warming.
#''The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.''
#:The formulas for velocity, momentum, and mass can in fact be written in such a way that they appear to have discontinuities, just as the tangent function has discontinuities while the underlying sine and cosine functions do not. But they can also be written in a form that does not show discontinuities.
#:All particles, with or without mass, can have any value of momentum. The formula for the velocity of a particle, in terms of its mass and momentum, is
#:::<math>v = \frac{pc}{\sqrt{m^2c^2+p^2}}</math>
#:For a particle with mass, this means that momentum of zero gives a speed of zero, and, as the momentum approaches infinity, the speed approaches c.
#:For a massless particle, the speed is always c.
#''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''
#:The simple answer is, unequivocally, that it acts on the 'relativistic' mass. The question seems to relate to a simple misunderstanding of Special Relativity. Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance in the body's mass with regard to the direction of the force. Thus to a given observer, a force in any direction will operate on the same mass. However, to a different observer, this mass may be different, although still the constant with regard to the direction of the force.
#''The observed lack of curvature in overall space.''
#:Spacetime has very definite curvature near any massive object—this is what makes gravity work. The '''global''' curvature of spacetime is an altogether different issue. Whether the average global curvature is zero has consequences for cosmological theories, but it has essentially no effect on the curvature that keeps the Earth in its orbit. If it did have an effect, the issue would have been settled long ago.
#''The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.''
#:We're still working on a quantum theory of gravity; this isn't so much a counter-example as saying that (classical) GR isn't valid in that domain.
#''The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.''
#:Special Relativity only forbids the transmission of matter, energy or information at a speed faster than light. There are plenty of other things that can move faster than light. Consider a laser on Earth which is rotating on a pivot, whose light shines onto the hull of a satellite 200,000Km away (2e8 metres). If the laser rotates at a sedentary one revolution ever four seconds, the speed of the laser beam's tip crossing the satellite's hull is 3.14e8 metres per second - faster than the speed of light. However, this is not a transfer of information. Any information is travelling from Earth to the satellite, obeying the universal speed limit. Similarly, the only information that can be transmitted by the quantum entanglement of two particles is from the originator of the particles to the two observers, not from one observer to another. Faster than light transmission of information using quantum entanglement has never been observed, nor has even conceived how such a mechanism might work.<ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612</ref>
#''The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.''
#:As an argument against relativity, there are two reasons that this is invalid (beyond simply questioning the evidential validity of the Bible):
#::a) These passages clearly refer to a [[miracle]]. A miracle, being an act of God, is not subject to the laws of physics.
#::b) It is highly debatable as to whether the verses do describe [[action-at-a-distance]] in the sense of an action whose influence travels instantaneously (and therefore faster than the speed of light). This itself may be argued from two viewpoints:
#:::i) When reading these passages, as with consideration of many apparent relativistic anomalies, the true picture of causality must be considered. In each case there are two apparent events. Event A - Jesus does something (says 'thy son liveth', says 'be it unto thee even as thou wilt', or Christ's spirit leaving His body). Event B - the apparent result (the son lives, her daughter is made whole, or the earth quakes). However, it is not the case in any of these examples that A causes B. Both A and B are caused by a third event. In the first two cases it is Christ's thought that causes the miracle and that causes His lips to announce the miracle. This thought would have occurred fractions of a second before either event, and is the non-instantaneous cause of both. In the last case it is Christ's death that is the precursor and cause of both events.
#:::ii) It must be considered that at the time when the Gospels were written, neither their authors nor their intended readers were aware of any concept of the speed of light and were unable to measure the billionths of a second difference between the events being considered here. Thus just as in modern parlance the phrase 'at the same moment' has a tolerance of milliseconds (unless specifically couched to mean otherwise) so do the various terms used by the Evangelists. They would never have considered it an important issue, and would therefore not have worried about the degree of precision.
#::::Miracles do not violate logic, and the [[Theory of Relativity]] asserts that these [[action-at-a-distance]] miracles described in the [[Gospels]] are impossible. No plausible medium for these miracles, even if they were non-instantaneous action-at-a-distance, has been proposed.
#''The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.''
#:Gravitons are a prediction of [[Quantum Theory]], not of relativity, although the concept is an extension of the relativistic idea that forces take a finite time to be transmitted over a distance.
#:No one expects to observe gravitons. Calculations show that it is well-nigh impossible with any conceivable detector that we could build. No one is designing, funding, or building any apparatus to search for gravitons.
#:Now it happens that theoretical physicists discuss and speculate on the existence and nature of such things as gravitons as part of their theoretical work. Some of these discussions take place among scientists who receive their salaries from various government agencies that are funded by taxpayers. Whether all of the things that scientists think about, talk about, and write about constitute a good use of money is not for us to say.
#''Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do not experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity''
#:Whilst this observation is unconfirmed, if true it would still not invalidate relativity. Many things may vary with position in space, and relativity does not deny this. There is no suggestion that the fine-structure constant is different at the same point in space for observers in different non-inertial frame, as the 'counterexample' implies.
#''The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a black hole. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."''
#:When physicists encounter something puzzling, their first reaction is usually not to assume that it shows that relativity is wrong. In fact the cited article never mentions relativity at all. It is about "magnetars", a type of neutron star about which very little is known, other than their extremely strong magnetic fields.
#:Many scientific discoveries have arisen from observations that were puzzling at first. Edwin Hubble's observations of galactic redshift led to the realization that the universe is expanding isotropically. The observations by Jocelyn Bell and Antony Hewish, of periodic pulsation in the radio emissions of a star, were so puzzling at first that they seemed to suggest transmissions from intelligent extraterrestrials. They had actually discovered pulsars. When Carl Anderson saw unexplained particle tracks in a cloud chamber, he had discovered antiparticles.
#:None of these people assumed that the explanation for these observations was that relativity was wrong. They were all astrophysicists and were quite familiar with relativity. In fact, Anderson's antiparticles had been predicted by the Dirac equation, a synthesis of special relativity and the Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics, from a few years earlier.
#''The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.''
#:It is utterly baffling how anyone could make such an assertion. The insights from relativity are multitudinous. Relativity forms the basis for astronomy, cosmology, electrodynamics, and many other fields. The interconnection between the electric and magnetic forces is now seen to be a straightforward consequence of relativity. Relativity combined with quantum mechanics are the basis of all of contemporary physics.
#:The Dirac equation, which gives rise to antiparticles and the theory of spinors, was an early example of introducing relatitivity into the Schrödinger equation.
#:More generally, special relativity was combined with quantum theory to produce [[quantum field theory]] (QFT). An example of a QFT is [[quantum electrodynamics]], the most precise theory in physics. Furthermore, string theory is Lorentz invariant and produces general relativity in the low energy limit.
#''The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.''
#:We are baffled that anyone would connect this problem with relativity. The non-relativity principle of conservation of mass has been known, in general, for hundreds of years, going back to the time of the alchemists, and has been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. The principle of conservation of energy has also been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. Relativity simply generalizes this to a principle of both together, with even greater precision. So, in principle, it is recognized that the mass of the standard kilogram could change if an energy transfer took place. But no combustion, corrosion, or nuclear decay is suspected of having taken place. In any case, the amount of energy that would have to have been released is 1.25 megawatt-hours, which would certainly have been noticed.
#:Relativity does not promise uniformity of the universe any more strongly than classical physics did. The apparent change in mass of the standard kilogram is simply a mystery.
#''The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 23, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about speculation that the constant "alpha" (see item 17 above) may not be constant. It might have decreased, by 45 parts per billion, as recently (in cosmic time) as two billion years ago, based on data from the Oklo "natural fission reactor". Other measurements have been made of alpha at earlier times, such as measurement of light from distant quasars. These measurements suggest that alpha has increased by a few parts per 105 in 12 billion years.
#:There is plenty of literature on theories about change in alpha, and some of it indicates that this may be due to change in the speed of light. Specifically, the Oklo data may suggest that the speed of light may have been increasing slightly. (This is the opposite of the direction of change claimed by fundamentalists, but is much smaller in any case.)
#:Speculation on a different speed of light in the past may relate to theories of "cosmic inflation", which touches on the question of why the Cosmic Background Radiation is so nearly isotropic, which indicates a near-uniformity of temperature, which requires inflation or some equivalent mechanism.
#:None of the scientists working in this area seem to doubt the fundamental correctness of relativity.
#''"According to Einstein's view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 23, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about a very recent and exciting development in fundamental theoretical physics, generally called the "holographic principle". This proposes that our perceived 3-dimensional space actually arises from a "hologram" on a 2-dimensional space. Much has been written about this recently, including the best-selling book ''The Hidden Reality'' by Brian Greene. This hologram manifests itself in the "foamlike" ripples of spacetime, at the scale of the Planck length, which is so small that there seemed to be no way to detect it directly.
#:But it seems that some "inexplicable static" in the results of another unrelated experiment, searching for gravitational waves, may be the first hints of the holographic nature of space. If so, this is a lucky and serendipitous result.
#:Serendipitous scientific discoveries have been made many times, as when Henri Becquerel put a photographic plate in a dark drawer because the weather was cloudy, and thereby discovered radioactivity.
#:That the "foamlike" nature of space at short distances is contrary to the continuous nature presumed by classical mechanics and relativity has been known for some time. This is the problem that quantum gravity seeks to solve.
#''"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don't gel."''
#:Quoting things without explaining the context is often a bad idea, and the indicated item is a good example of this. It gives no hint of what the article from which the quote was taken is about. The article is about one scientist's contribution to the problem of unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. The scientist, Petr HoYava of Berkeley, has come up with an approach that he says eliminates the infinities that have plagued other unification attempts.
#:The two quoted sentences are HoYava's ''statement of the problem''. So it comes as no surprise that he says that there is a conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics. The very next paragraph begins:
#::The solution, HoYava says, is to snip threads that bind time to space at very high energies .... At low energies, general relativity emerges from this underlying framework ..."
#:It is well known that, just as classical mechanics emerges from quantum mechanics at non-microscopic scales, and classical mechanics emerges from relativity at low speeds, both relativity and quantum mechanics should emerge from the Grand Unified Theory (whatever that turns out to be) at the appropriate scales.
#''The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.''
#:The topology of wormholes is an interesting topic, widely discussed among theoretical physicists and mathematicians. There is much speculation about what they would be like (if they could exist at all under quantum gravity), and what kind of "cosmic censorship" or "chronology protection" theorems might make practical time travel impossible. The nature of these theorems seems to be intertwined with theories of quantum gravity and "grand unification", so the exact form of the "cosmic censorship", if it exists, can't be known until quantum mechanics and relativistic geometry are unified. It is an exciting field of research. No one believes that the "cosmic censorship" will take the form of relativity not being a true non-quantum approximation to reality.
#''The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.''
#:Since the 70's much work has been done on the subject of black hole thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973CMaPh..31..161B</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9307035v1.pdf</ref>, most notably by the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge [[Stephen Hawking]]. When quantum field theory is added to the analysis of black holes it is found that they do not possess "low entropy" (quite the opposite, in fact) and are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...7.2333B</ref>. The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article has labelled this work in a footnote as "[c]ontrived explanations", with no explanation for this characterization given.
#''Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.''
#:Please read the cited paper carefully. It is a survey of their observations over a 30 year period. They point out that their data matches general relativity to within 0.2 percent, and is now down in the "noise" of other effects, such as lack of accurate knowledge of just how far away the pulsars are, and lack of accurate knowledge of galactic constants. As they say in the abstract, "tighter bounds will be difficult to obtain." The paper, written in 2004, also notes that, because the pulsar beams are slowly tilting out of the line of sight to Earth, "A core component [of the emission] is quite prominent in the data taken in 1980-81, but it faded very significantly between 1980 and 1998 and was nearly gone by 2003."
#:That is why they are not releasing further data. 30 years is a fairly long time to watch a pair of pulsars. They're not doing the experiment any more—it did its job, and it's finished. No one drops cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa any more either.
#:The data are not diverging from the predictions.
#''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.''
#:The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses general relativity to achieve greater accuracy<ref>http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html</ref>.
#:In fact, relativity is what makes the magnetic force necessary. The magnetic force is used in, among other things, electric motors and generators.
#:Even if it were the case that no practical applications have come from relativity, that is irrelevant. The validity of a theory is not based on the creation of useful devices. It is based on its ability to accurately predict the results of an experiment. Relativity "has held up under extensive experimental scrutiny" <ref>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/</ref>.
#:If scientific theories were judged by their application in useful devices, the following Nobel-worthy theories would be rejected:
#::cosmic inflation
#::parity violation in the weak force
#::the "standard model", with strange/charm/top/bottom/mu/tau
#::the Chandrasekhar limit for white dwarf stars
#''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.''
#:The rules for calculating inertia and other questions of mechanics are well known. The inertia, that is, the way that a force affects an object's momentum, is well known. Hundreds of physics textbooks discuss this in great detail, in terms of the Lorentz transform and the concepts of the force and momentum 4-vectors. The "inertia" comes from what is now called the mass, which used to be called the "rest mass". Archaic treatments formulated this in terms of the "relativistic mass", which was different. The mass is a scalar, and has no direction. The formulas for calculating the motion in terms of forces, in the direction of motion or transverse to it, are well known.
#''Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.''
#:This seems to be another basic misunderstanding of relativity, from someone who gave up halfway through the textbook. Newtonian momentum (p = mv) does certainly indicate that a body with zero mass (''m'') must have zero momentum whatever its velocity (''v''). However, the relativistic equation for momentum is:
#::<math> p = \gamma m_0v\,</math>
#:where ''m''0 is the [[invariant mass|rest mass]] of the object and ''?'' is the Lorentz factor, given by
#::<math>\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2}}\,,</math>
#:where ''c'' is the [[speed of light]].
#:For the case of a photon, where rest mass is zero and ''v'' is equal to ''c'', this gives ''p'' as zero divided by zero - an undetermined value.
#:However, with the substitution of the famous E=mc2, where E is the energy of the body, the momentum equation can be rearranged to:
#::<math>pc = \sqrt{E^2 - m_0^2c^4}</math>
#:With a photon of zero rest mass, this gives:
#::<math>p = E/c\,</math>
#:Finally, substituting Planck's Equation for the energy of a photon <math>E = hf\,</math> where ''h'' is [[Planck's Constant]] and ''f'' is the frequency of the photon, we get the familiar (and experimentally demonstrated) value for a photon's momentum of:
#::<math>p = hf/c = h/\lambda\,</math>
#:where <math>\lambda</math> is the photon's wavelength.<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html</ref>
#''Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.''
#:There are no "conditions of a conservative field". A conservative field is one that has a curl of zero. Perhaps what was meant was that the gravitational field around the Sun, under Newtonian mechanics, is conservative. This is true because it is the gradient of an inverse-square scalar field, and all gradients have a curl of zero. Under relativity, the curl is also zero, due to the Bianchi identity and the symmetries of Riemann's tensor. See the extensive discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ACounterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=801452&oldid=799266 here].
#:The reference to the twin paradox suggests that the author thought that the passage of time is some kind of scalar field that should be obtainable as the path integral of a conservative vector field. It is not. Passage of time is a property of one's path through spacetime, and is similar to path length. (In fact, under the Lorentz/Minkowski metric, it is exactly path length.) Just as two paths from point A to point B on a sheet of paper can have different lengths, the paths of the twins can have different lengths, and hence different elapsed local times.
#''The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?''
#:The "Ehrenfest paradox" is not an actual paradox. Non-inertial relativistic motion of solid bodies is quite complicated, involving such concepts as "Born rigidity", "Langevin observers", the "Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric", and "quotient manifolds". In general, the subject is complicated, and has provided physicists with much food for thought. But it does not disprove relativity.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.''
#:The claims of that item are preposterous. Read the cited paper (or its abstract) carefully. Einstein's statement that clocks would run slower at the equator, due to time dilation, was correct according to special relativity alone. What Einstein didn't realize, because he wouldn't discover general relativity for another 10 years, was that the gravitational time shift would offset that.
#:A "geoid" (the shape dicussed in the paper) is a theoretical shape used in mathematical physics, that is in equilibrium between the effects of centrifugal force (from rotation) and gravity. It is essentially an oblate spheroid. It can be thought of as the shape a rotating planet would take if it were completely fluid. Or it could be thought of as the shape of "global sea level". Jupiter, because of its rapid rotation, has a very pronounced flattening at the poles. Since Jupiter is not solid, its shape is a geoid. The Earth is ''very nearly'' a geoid, of course. But not exactly, because of gravitational nonuniformities, and things like mountains, that can exist because of the Earth's rigidity. No one "made new assumptions about the Earth's shape" to justify anything. The assumption that the Earth's shape is a geoid is a theoretical assumption due to the ''approximately'' fluid nature of the Earth. But no one claims that the Earth's shape is anything other than what it is observed and measured to be.
#:What the paper is about is the fact that the effects of rotational speed and gravitational time dilation happen to cancel each other on an ideal geoid. So all clocks at "sea level" on an ideal geoid-shaped planet run at the same speed. Whether this result is implausible is not for us to say.
#:The cited paper does not refute relativity.
#''The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.''
#:The physics and mathematics underlying the "twin paradox" are well known. That one of the twins will have had to undergo different accelerations from the other before returning to the same point is what enables them to perceive different passage of time. This does not contradict relativity, and Einstein never said that it does. His explanation in terms of different acceleration is correct.
#:The comment about extending the length of the trip so that the acceleration would be ''de minimis'' is wrong. It seems to suggest that the acceleration could be reduced until it is negligible. It can be reduced by lengthening the trip, but it is not negligible. The Lorentz transform, and the equations of motion, are mathematically exact. The integral of a very small function over a long period is still significant. If the twins followed different paths in spacetime, which they must in order to measure different elapsed proper time, they must have undergone different accelerations, however small those differences may have been.
#:Of course, if they never come back to the same point, they could both undergo zero acceleration.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.''
#:Quantum field theory abounds with fields. The Higgs particle has a Higgs field. It has nothing to do with the "luminiferous aether".
#''Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.''
#:Time isn't a vector. It is a component of the vector space known as "spacetime". Vectors have negatives; the word "inverse" is not typically used here. While there are thermodynamic and other reasons for not allowing time to go backwards in the real world, the mathematics of spacetime allow vectors with any components, even negative ones.
#''In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.''
#:That a Bible verse "likely" refers to a scientific phenomenon does not make good science. The objection appears to be claiming that the Bible contradicts the Michelson-Morley experiment, so the latter must be wrong. The Michelson-Morley experiment is very well known, has been repeated countless times, and is incontrovertible. To suggest that the Bible verse in Genesis contradicts such an incontrovertible phenomenon does a disservice to both the Bible and to science.
#''It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].''
#:Modern formulations of the Lorentz aether theory may very well make it completely equivalent to relativity, both special and general. But that doesn't make relativity wrong; it just means that another theory is just as correct. The universal preference of the scientific community for relativity over the Lorentz theory is probably not based on religious faith, but on simplicity, as expressed in [[Occam's razor]]. The Lorentz theory postulates an aether that no experiment can possibly determine the properties of, while relativity postulates no aether.
#''Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."''
#:They are not "beyond understanding". They are simply beyond closed-form solution. Cosmologists work with approximate solutions, calculated by extensive computer calculations, all the time. A well-known example of this is the simulation of galaxy dynamics. Particle physicists do this also, in, for example, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) calculations. It is fortunate that the equations of Keplerian/Newtonian planetary motion were solvable by the mathematical methods of the 17th century—a closed-form solution to a second-order differential equation. Modern physics problems are much harder. But, with modern computers, we can solve the equations of gravity to enormous precision.
#''Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein's Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."''
#:The first cited reference, from which the quote was taken, is a totally crackpot web page, from a web site that seems to specialize in hosting crackpot papers. The writing is utterly illiterate and incoherent, as in this sentence: "According to Faraday's Law it can be explained as that, duo to the magnetic flux in conductor line changing, firstly induced electromotive force dU coming from the line-winded conductor to bring out voltage, then based on differential form <math>I = \frac{-\sigma s dU}{dl}</math> of Ohm's Law, the physical natural would be regarded as 'voltage before electric current' "
#''Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.''
#:The equations of electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations), and their connection with relativity, are well known. Hundreds of electrodynamics textbooks cover this subject. The equations are correct at all realizable speeds, even relativistic (''near'' the speed of light) speeds. (Maxwell's equations are said to be the only equations from classical physics that did not need to be modified for relativity.) The equations correctly describe the behavior of magnets (this is presumably what was meant by "solenoids"), charges, and electric and magnetic fields, even at speeds near the speed of light. Of course the equations don't work ''at'' the speed of light. The cited article never discussed speeds ''near'' the speed of light, only ''at'' the speed of light. The questioner was rightly taken to task for his physically unrealizable assumption.
#''General Relativity predicts how the gravitational fields of the Sun and Moon generate ocean tides. However, in the summer of 2009, tides along the East Coast of the United States were higher than expected.''
#:This one is utterly absurd. The calculation of the gravity of the Sun and Moon in producing tides has been known for hundreds of years, explained by Newtonian gravity. The effect of relativity on this is microscopic.
#:
#:The cited article is about the many things affecting the gross behavior of tides. Keep in mind that the factors affecting the tides involve a lot of hard-to-precisely-quantify things such as wind and ocean currents, and the melting of glaciers. As an example of how imprecise things are, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans differ in mean height by about 8 inches at the Panama Canal, and the tides are about 20 feet on the Pacific side and 1 foot on the Atlantic side. As another example, tides in the Bay of Fundy are as high as 53 feet. Tides are not a simple calculation from Newtonian or Einsteinian mechanics. The difference between Newtonian gravitation and Einsteinian gravitation is utterly insignificant in comparison to these gross effects.
#''The supermassive black hole within the Andromeda galaxy puzzled researchers by increasing in brightness by a factor of 100 in 2006.''
#:This item is about unexpected behavior of the supermassive black holes at the centers of many galaxies. Black holes are a prediction of relativity. The fact that people are still learning new things about them is hardly surprising.
#:
#:The cited article never mentions relativity or the possibility that relativity is wrong. In fact, the entire discussion is in the context of black holes. The second study was about a black hole at the center of a galaxy apparently wandering out of place. The hypothesis is that a merger of two galaxies was involved, and "the theoretical prediction is that when two black holes merge, the newly combined black hole receives a 'kick' due to the emission of gravitational waves ..." Gravitational waves are, of course, a specific prediction of general relativity.
#''Scientists are unable to explain a June 2012 cluster of earthquakes in Ireland.''
#:This one is even more absurd than the one above about tides. We cannot fathom why anyone would think earthquakes are a counterexample to relativity.
#''Apparently, the equations of General Relativity do not apply to the motions of extra-solar planets.''
#:This refers to a recently discovered planetary system in which another star is closer than had previously been seen in such a system. Systems involving two stars and a planet constitute the "three body problem", which has never been solved analytically. But if only one of the objects is massive, such as the Sun, the system can be stable for all practical purposes, which is why the solar system is effectively stable even though it is a many-body problem. But two stars make the system much more problematical. In the past, such systems have had the other star far enough away that it has essentially no effect. The Gamma Cephei system is different, and scientists are eager to analyze it in detail. They are frustrated in this by the extremely scant data about the planet's orbit, since that information has to be gleaned from tiny spectroscopic shifts (in only one dimension!) of the two stars.
#:
#:The effect of Relativity on this is, of course, the precession of the "perihelion" due to the effects of General Relativity. From the information that has been gathered, the precession should be about 1.14 arcseconds per Earth century, or about 1/37th that of Mercury. The precession of Mercury was established with accurate visual observations. Measuring something 1/37th as large, from the Doppler shift in spectroscopic measurements, is utterly beyond current technology. Other than that, there is no reason to consider relativity. Classical mechanics will do just fine.
#''General Relativity fails to predict the Allais Effect.''
#:A quick Google search will show that there is no "concerted effort to suppress knowledge about the phenomenon". Tom van Flandern (no darling of those who accept relativity; he has been cited at Conservapedia in the "Lack of evidence for Relativity" section) explains the phenomenon in his 2003 paper [http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v67/i2/e022002 Allais gravity and pendulum effects during solar eclipses explained]: "Here we show that an unusual phenomenon that occurs only during solar eclipses, rapid air mass movement for the bulk of the atmosphere above normal cloud levels, appears to be a sufficient explanation for both the magnitude and behavior of the anomaly previously reported in these pages."
#:The fact that "attempts to duplicate the result have been reported as failures" is certainly consistent with an effort to suppress knowledge, but it's also consistent with the effect not existing.
#''Scientists at the Collider Detector at Fermilab collided protons and anti-protons ....''
#:Actually, the energy released in a collision should equal the initial kinetic energy of the colliding particles plus their rest mass energy, ''minus the rest mass energy of the resultant particles''. There is no suggestion that this wasn't the case in the cited experiment.
#:The title of the cited article is "Has new physics been found at the ageing Tevatron?" It is about the discovery of more muons than predicted, as well as some muons that appear to have originated from outside of the "pipe" area of the Tevatron. There was no suggestion at all that relativity was violated. The article was simply about a new discovery. Relativity never made the claim that no new physics would ever again be discovered.
#''Quantum entanglement near the event horizon of a black hole ....''
#:It is well known that quantum gravity (that is, the "Theory of Everything") is an unsolved problem, and it is the subject of much discussion in the physics community. The whole topic of string theory, for example, revolves around this. Among the places where General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics collide most notoriously is within the Planck length of a black hole's event horizon. Among the issues involved is the notion of "quantum loss of information", that was the subject of a famous bet among Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, and John Preskill. (Hawking and Thorne lost.) Basically, physicists do not know just what happens within quantum-mechanical distances (the Planck length) of a black hole. But no one doubts the behavior of black holes at reasonable distances, or, for that matter, General Relativity at reasonable distances.
#:
#:See this link:<ref>http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae635.cfm</ref> for a readable explanation of the problems that arise at the scales at which relativity and QM collide.
#:
#:For an overview of the "AMPS" theory and the "firewall" controversy, see this link:<ref>http://quantumfrontiers.com/2012/12/03/is-alice-burning-the-black-hole-firewall-controversy/</ref>.
#:
#:Extremely interested readers might also be interested in this paper:<ref>http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9209055v1.pdf</ref>.
#:
#:In none of these papers does anyone express the slightest doubt that the standard formulation of General Relativity, or the standard formulation of Quantum Mechanics, is correct. Because of things like perihelion precession, the Shapiro effect, the observed behavior of stars near black holes, and radiation from their accretion disks, there is absolutely no doubt that General Relativity is correct for matter in the large, including phenomena near black holes but not so close that quantum gravity comes into play.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:science]]

User talk:JudyJ

2012-12-30T02:43:22Z

JudyJ: rv vandalism. My goodness! I've hit the big time!

Welcome!

I have created a page on which rebuttals to the "counterexamples" page can be presented perhaps more clearly. See [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:53, 23 January 2012 (EST)

== Congratulations ==

The [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]] page looks really good now. It is well-argued and "professional"-looking. Congratulations to all who contributed. And congratulations on your internship :-) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:52, 22 March 2012 (EDT)

Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-12-30T02:31:13Z

JudyJ: #48.

Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-12-24T00:08:29Z

JudyJ: #47. #48 will have to wait.

This is intended as an article rebutting the points in the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article. That article's talk page has proven to be less than satisfactory for this purpose, because it gets archived, and much of its material has degenerated into personal disputes. We believe that the two sides of the issue are better handled in two articles—this one and [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], rather than a talk page.

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

#''Computer simulations based on the theory of relativity predict far more black holes than are observed''.
#:The cited article says absolutely nothing about the ''number'' of black holes, modeled or observed. It is about a discrepancy between computer models predicting the ''masses'' of black holes at the centers of galaxies and the observed masses. The article suggests a heretofore-unmodeled mechanism whereby galaxy evolution would cause less mass to go into the black holes. The article in no way suggests that black holes don't exist.
#''The orbital radius of the Moon's orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts''.
#:This could be a counterexample to both GR and Newtonian gravity--in both, the radius is defined in terms of conserved quantities.
#::The objection has been raised that this would still be a counterexample to Relativity.
#:::Yes, if it were actually true that the Moon's orbit is undergoing some kind of anomalous perturbation, it would indeed be a disproof of Relativity, Newtonian mechanics, and, in fact, all of physics since Galileo.
#::::Actually, the average radius of the Moon's orbit is in fact increasing. By 38mm a year. This was first predicted in the late 19th century and actually measured since at least the early 1970's and more accurately thereafter thanks to the mirrors left for that purpose by the Apollo astronauts. The reason for this is well-known and simple enough to be explained on science-oriented TV shows from time to time. To put it simply: the Moon pulls on the Earth causing the tides and slowing down its rotation slightly, lengthening it's day by 2 milliseconds every 100 years. Reciprocally, the Earth pulls on the Moon and accelerates it slightly thus increasing the height of its orbit and energy is conserved. For a more complete explanation see <ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124</ref>. This behavoiur, predicted over 100 years ago, observed and measured, is in no way "anomalous" and relativity, general, special or otherwise doesn't really concern itself with tidal mechanics so on that point at least physics, Galillean, Newtonian and Einsteinian, are quite safe for now.
#''The Pioneer anomaly.''
#:The "Pioneer anomaly" is the deviation in the motion of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft from their predicted motion, at the distance of Saturn and beyond. It should be noted that the anomaly is about 1000 times greater than the difference between the classical Newtonian prediction and the prediction of relativity, so this is not a problem with relativity ''per se''; it is more general than that.
#:Calculating the force caused by heat (that is, miniscule amounts of infrared radiation) from the radioactive power source was one of the first effects that was examined. The anomaly arose when this and other known effects could not fully explain the deviation.
#:The problem is believed to have been solved by taking into account the reflection of the radiation from the power source off of the back of the antenna dish<ref>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/</ref>. The solution is sometimes described as an application of "Phong shading", a technique of computer graphics that is now considered imprecise. But Phong shading itself is not what is important. The "ray tracing" computer graphics technique that underlies Phong shading was what inspired the scientists to take reflection into account.
#''the solar flattening is ... too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation.''
#:This observation is interesting, but the predictions of oblateness come from analysis of fluid mechanics; relativity is not involved, and the cited paper makes no mention of relativity.
#:
#:We expect a very large rotating body to show oblateness according to well-known principles involving centrifugal force. This is particularly easy to observe with Jupiter, though the other planets, including Earth, show it too. Scientists do not know why the Sun exhibits nearly zero oblateness, but relativity is not believed to be the cause.
#:
#:Now it happens that there ''is'' a connection between solar oblateness and the calculation of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and that involves General Relativity. When checking the observed precession against the effect predicted by Relativity, one needs to subtract the effect of solar oblateness, along with the other effects, such as equinoctial precession and the gravitational effects of other planets. The effect of solar oblateness is a mere .0254 arcseconds per century, insignificant in comparison with precession (about 5500) and other planets' gravity (about 550). The figure of .0254 was calculated based on what fluid dynamics predicted, and was subtracted in the figures quoted below in item #9. When that tiny effect is removed, the error bars still overlap that for the GR prediction.
#''Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity. The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement''.
#:This is an interesting observation. The world's best scientific minds are looking into it. That relativity is incorrect is not being taken seriously as a possible explanation.
#:'''Update:''' The problem seems to have been caused by a faulty cable connection between a computer and a GPS unit. When the connection was repaired, the travel time increased by 60 nanoseconds, which had been the amount of the anomaly <ref>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/22/technology-faster-than-light-neutrinos.html</ref> <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/22/loose-wire-led-to-stunning-faster-than-light-particle-finding/?intcmp=features</ref>. The claims of faster-than-light neutrinos have now been refuted very thoroughly<ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html</ref><ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/once-again-physicists-debunk.html</ref>.
#:The objection has been raised that a recent news report from the BBC ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is also contradictory, since neutrinos have mass and are therefore forbidden by relativity to travel at exactly the speed of light. Since the neutrino energies were 17GeV, and the current estimate for the neutrino mass is about 0.25eV, the deviation from the speed of light would be about 1 part in 1022. This means that the neutrinos would arrive at the detector about .26x10-24 seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is one quarter of a billionth of a femtosecond, or about .26x10-15 of a nanosecond. The accuracy of the GPS units and cesium clocks used in the measurement is greater than a nanosecond, so the discrepancy cannot possibly be detected. It is unfortunate that the claim "the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos" was taken so literally.
#:::A "counter-rebuttal" has been made: ''The politicized rush to rehabilitate the Theory of Relativity was far from convincing, and the "resolution" was a clear statement that is flatly contrary to the Theory''. Just what statement is being referred to as the "resolution" is not clear, but our best guess is that it is the statement by Sandro Centro, quoted by Jason Palmer in the cited BBC article. As noted above, that statement is in error by about 15 orders of magnitude less than the resolution of the measurement. None of the assertions of relativity denies that anyone could ever make a statement that is not precisely correct.
#''Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").''
#:This may be another case of the Pioneer anomaly, or it may be something else. However, it is very unlikely that it shows that relativity is wrong and Newtonian mechanics is correct. Saying that, every time someone finds some phenomenon that is puzzling, that shows that relativity is wrong, is not a convincing way to do science. The cited paper is about unexpected behavior of some spacecraft as they use "gravity assists" in near-Earth flybys. The hypothesized causes involve errors in the mathematical models to calculate such effects as relativistic effects (the detailed calculation of them, not the question of whether they exist), tidal effects, Earth radiation pressure, or atmospheric drag. The paper suggests that most of those can be ruled out, though there could be round-off and integration errors, or errors in the spherical harmonic representation of Earth's gravity field.
#''Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "dark matter" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it due to the acceleration of various parts of galaxies that accelerated funny that led to dark matter (based on simple Newtonian dynamics)?
#''The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "dark energy" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:This is the dark energy/cosmological constant argument. The cosmological constant was added by Einstein after he discovered that his field equations (<math>\mathbf{G}=8\pi \mathbf{T}</math>) predicted that the universe was expanding, contradicting his firm philosophical belief in a static universe. So he inserted <math>\Lambda \mathbf{g}</math> to the LHS so that it would predict a static universe. A few years later, Hubble showed the universe to be expanding, and Einstein called the cosmological constant the worst mistake of his career. So, it sort of had a bad reputation, and people didn't want to seriously consider it, until recent observations have shown the universe's expansion to be accelerating forced them to do so. It could have had a very different history. Einstein could have had that term in the EFE's from the start, and pointed out that it would determine if the universe's expansion was accelerating (or not expanding at all!) and it would take further observation to determine its value.
#''Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.''
#:A footnote goes on to say that "In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01) ..."
#:Considering only the ''anomalous'' precession, that is, the precession that remains after all known other factors (other planets and asteroids, solar oblateness) have been accounted for, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values are:
#::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
#::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
#::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
#::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
#::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijpers 2008]]
#:These error bars, and that of the relativity formula, all overlap.
#:The formula for mechanics under general relativity is complicated, but it is not contrived or conformed. "Conformed" suggests that it was somehow adjusted or "tweaked" to match the 42.98 figure. The formula is
#:::<math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>
#:To begin to explain the formula, Newton's law of gravity, combining F = ma and <math>F = \frac{KMm}{r^2}\,</math>, is
#::<math>a = \frac{KM}{r^2}\,</math>
#:In Einstein's equation, <math>T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "stress-energy tensor", and <math>8 \pi T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> gives the density of the Sun, taking the place of <math>\frac{M}{r^2}\,</math>. <math>G_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "Einstein curvature tensor", and says how spacetime curves to create an apparent gravitational acceleration.
#:There is nothing to tweak to get a value of 42.98 arcseconds. 8 is 8. <math>\pi\,</math> is <math>\pi\,</math>. K is Newton's constant of gravitation in both formulas.
#:
#::::The above discussion notwithstanding, more sophisticated technology has measured a precession of 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01, which disproves the prediction of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Notice how publication of data stopped two decades ago when the observations diverged from the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
#:Measurements of planetary motion are now calculated relative to the "International Celestial Reference Frame" (ICFR), replacing the older, and much less accurate "equinoctial" frame. The older measurements got a value of about 5600 arcseconds/century for the precession of Mercury, nearly all of which (5025 arcseconds) was because of the rotation of the "equinoctial" frame. The ICFR frame removes that source of uncertainty, and, with the very accurate radar measurements conducted by NASA between 1987 and 1997<ref>[http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf]</ref>, gets a value of 574.10±0.65 arcseconds observed, in good agreement with the predicted 574.64±0.69 value.
#:
#:The ICFR is described in [http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Publications/TechnicalNotes/tn32.html this] document, dated 2003.
#''Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found. Sound like global warming?''
#:True, the ''direct'' searches for gravitational waves have not yet yielded any clear results, though indirect observations have been made (the Hulse/Taylor observations.) Before people dismiss indirect observations, recall that no one has ever seen an electron.
#:The Earth-based LIGO detectors have, so far, not detected any unambiguous gravitational wave signatures from such events as a black-hole merger. It is barely sensitive enough to find such things in the Milky Way or very nearby galaxies. It is being upgraded in a plan that should complete in 2014. It is hoped that, after the upgrade, it will be able to see these events clearly and unambiguously.
#:The space-based LISA detectors have not been built yet, and the original proposal has been scrapped because of budgetary problems. A new version, called "eLISA" has been proposed, and should be sensitive to events as far away as redshift 15.
#:Whether these experiments are a good use of money is another question, one that has no bearing on whether relativity is correct.
#::The objection has been raised that the experiments should not have been funded if scientists were going to ignore negative results.
#:::The results are only partly negative. The scientists knew all along that a certain amount of luck would be involved in finding a sufficiently strong signal within the time frame of the experiment. The failure so far does not mean that black-hole mergers do not emit gravitational waves; just that they haven't been lucky enough to find them. They will continue to search.
#:'''Update:''' Another, much more commonplace observation of gravitational wave emission has neen reported<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19408363 BBC article</ref>. The article suggests that, since it shows detectable gravitational waves are more common than previously thought, there is optimism that the eLISA detector, when completed, might find one source per week.
#:This has nothing to do with global warming.
#''The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.''
#:The formulas for velocity, momentum, and mass can in fact be written in such a way that they appear to have discontinuities, just as the tangent function has discontinuities while the underlying sine and cosine functions do not. But they can also be written in a form that does not show discontinuities.
#:All particles, with or without mass, can have any value of momentum. The formula for the velocity of a particle, in terms of its mass and momentum, is
#:::<math>v = \frac{pc}{\sqrt{m^2c^2+p^2}}</math>
#:For a particle with mass, this means that momentum of zero gives a speed of zero, and, as the momentum approaches infinity, the speed approaches c.
#:For a massless particle, the speed is always c.
#''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''
#:The simple answer is, unequivocally, that it acts on the 'relativistic' mass. The question seems to relate to a simple misunderstanding of Special Relativity. Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance in the body's mass with regard to the direction of the force. Thus to a given observer, a force in any direction will operate on the same mass. However, to a different observer, this mass may be different, although still the constant with regard to the direction of the force.
#''The observed lack of curvature in overall space.''
#:Spacetime has very definite curvature near any massive object—this is what makes gravity work. The '''global''' curvature of spacetime is an altogether different issue. Whether the average global curvature is zero has consequences for cosmological theories, but it has essentially no effect on the curvature that keeps the Earth in its orbit. If it did have an effect, the issue would have been settled long ago.
#''The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.''
#:We're still working on a quantum theory of gravity; this isn't so much a counter-example as saying that (classical) GR isn't valid in that domain.
#''The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.''
#:Special Relativity only forbids the transmission of matter, energy or information at a speed faster than light. There are plenty of other things that can move faster than light. Consider a laser on Earth which is rotating on a pivot, whose light shines onto the hull of a satellite 200,000Km away (2e8 metres). If the laser rotates at a sedentary one revolution ever four seconds, the speed of the laser beam's tip crossing the satellite's hull is 3.14e8 metres per second - faster than the speed of light. However, this is not a transfer of information. Any information is travelling from Earth to the satellite, obeying the universal speed limit. Similarly, the only information that can be transmitted by the quantum entanglement of two particles is from the originator of the particles to the two observers, not from one observer to another. Faster than light transmission of information using quantum entanglement has never been observed, nor has even conceived how such a mechanism might work.<ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612</ref>
#''The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.''
#:As an argument against relativity, there are two reasons that this is invalid (beyond simply questioning the evidential validity of the Bible):
#::a) These passages clearly refer to a [[miracle]]. A miracle, being an act of God, is not subject to the laws of physics.
#::b) It is highly debatable as to whether the verses do describe [[action-at-a-distance]] in the sense of an action whose influence travels instantaneously (and therefore faster than the speed of light). This itself may be argued from two viewpoints:
#:::i) When reading these passages, as with consideration of many apparent relativistic anomalies, the true picture of causality must be considered. In each case there are two apparent events. Event A - Jesus does something (says 'thy son liveth', says 'be it unto thee even as thou wilt', or Christ's spirit leaving His body). Event B - the apparent result (the son lives, her daughter is made whole, or the earth quakes). However, it is not the case in any of these examples that A causes B. Both A and B are caused by a third event. In the first two cases it is Christ's thought that causes the miracle and that causes His lips to announce the miracle. This thought would have occurred fractions of a second before either event, and is the non-instantaneous cause of both. In the last case it is Christ's death that is the precursor and cause of both events.
#:::ii) It must be considered that at the time when the Gospels were written, neither their authors nor their intended readers were aware of any concept of the speed of light and were unable to measure the billionths of a second difference between the events being considered here. Thus just as in modern parlance the phrase 'at the same moment' has a tolerance of milliseconds (unless specifically couched to mean otherwise) so do the various terms used by the Evangelists. They would never have considered it an important issue, and would therefore not have worried about the degree of precision.
#::::Miracles do not violate logic, and the [[Theory of Relativity]] asserts that these [[action-at-a-distance]] miracles described in the [[Gospels]] are impossible. No plausible medium for these miracles, even if they were non-instantaneous action-at-a-distance, has been proposed.
#''The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.''
#:Gravitons are a prediction of [[Quantum Theory]], not of relativity, although the concept is an extension of the relativistic idea that forces take a finite time to be transmitted over a distance.
#:No one expects to observe gravitons. Calculations show that it is well-nigh impossible with any conceivable detector that we could build. No one is designing, funding, or building any apparatus to search for gravitons.
#:Now it happens that theoretical physicists discuss and speculate on the existence and nature of such things as gravitons as part of their theoretical work. Some of these discussions take place among scientists who receive their salaries from various government agencies that are funded by taxpayers. Whether all of the things that scientists think about, talk about, and write about constitute a good use of money is not for us to say.
#''Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do not experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity''
#:Whilst this observation is unconfirmed, if true it would still not invalidate relativity. Many things may vary with position in space, and relativity does not deny this. There is no suggestion that the fine-structure constant is different at the same point in space for observers in different non-inertial frame, as the 'counterexample' implies.
#''The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a black hole. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."''
#:When physicists encounter something puzzling, their first reaction is usually not to assume that it shows that relativity is wrong. In fact the cited article never mentions relativity at all. It is about "magnetars", a type of neutron star about which very little is known, other than their extremely strong magnetic fields.
#:Many scientific discoveries have arisen from observations that were puzzling at first. Edwin Hubble's observations of galactic redshift led to the realization that the universe is expanding isotropically. The observations by Jocelyn Bell and Antony Hewish, of periodic pulsation in the radio emissions of a star, were so puzzling at first that they seemed to suggest transmissions from intelligent extraterrestrials. They had actually discovered pulsars. When Carl Anderson saw unexplained particle tracks in a cloud chamber, he had discovered antiparticles.
#:None of these people assumed that the explanation for these observations was that relativity was wrong. They were all astrophysicists and were quite familiar with relativity. In fact, Anderson's antiparticles had been predicted by the Dirac equation, a synthesis of special relativity and the Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics, from a few years earlier.
#''The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.''
#:It is utterly baffling how anyone could make such an assertion. The insights from relativity are multitudinous. Relativity forms the basis for astronomy, cosmology, electrodynamics, and many other fields. The interconnection between the electric and magnetic forces is now seen to be a straightforward consequence of relativity. Relativity combined with quantum mechanics are the basis of all of contemporary physics.
#:The Dirac equation, which gives rise to antiparticles and the theory of spinors, was an early example of introducing relatitivity into the Schrödinger equation.
#:More generally, special relativity was combined with quantum theory to produce [[quantum field theory]] (QFT). An example of a QFT is [[quantum electrodynamics]], the most precise theory in physics. Furthermore, string theory is Lorentz invariant and produces general relativity in the low energy limit.
#''The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.''
#:We are baffled that anyone would connect this problem with relativity. The non-relativity principle of conservation of mass has been known, in general, for hundreds of years, going back to the time of the alchemists, and has been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. The principle of conservation of energy has also been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. Relativity simply generalizes this to a principle of both together, with even greater precision. So, in principle, it is recognized that the mass of the standard kilogram could change if an energy transfer took place. But no combustion, corrosion, or nuclear decay is suspected of having taken place. In any case, the amount of energy that would have to have been released is 1.25 megawatt-hours, which would certainly have been noticed.
#:Relativity does not promise uniformity of the universe any more strongly than classical physics did. The apparent change in mass of the standard kilogram is simply a mystery.
#''The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 23, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about speculation that the constant "alpha" (see item 17 above) may not be constant. It might have decreased, by 45 parts per billion, as recently (in cosmic time) as two billion years ago, based on data from the Oklo "natural fission reactor". Other measurements have been made of alpha at earlier times, such as measurement of light from distant quasars. These measurements suggest that alpha has increased by a few parts per 105 in 12 billion years.
#:There is plenty of literature on theories about change in alpha, and some of it indicates that this may be due to change in the speed of light. Specifically, the Oklo data may suggest that the speed of light may have been increasing slightly. (This is the opposite of the direction of change claimed by fundamentalists, but is much smaller in any case.)
#:Speculation on a different speed of light in the past may relate to theories of "cosmic inflation", which touches on the question of why the Cosmic Background Radiation is so nearly isotropic, which indicates a near-uniformity of temperature, which requires inflation or some equivalent mechanism.
#:None of the scientists working in this area seem to doubt the fundamental correctness of relativity.
#''"According to Einstein's view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 23, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about a very recent and exciting development in fundamental theoretical physics, generally called the "holographic principle". This proposes that our perceived 3-dimensional space actually arises from a "hologram" on a 2-dimensional space. Much has been written about this recently, including the best-selling book ''The Hidden Reality'' by Brian Greene. This hologram manifests itself in the "foamlike" ripples of spacetime, at the scale of the Planck length, which is so small that there seemed to be no way to detect it directly.
#:But it seems that some "inexplicable static" in the results of another unrelated experiment, searching for gravitational waves, may be the first hints of the holographic nature of space. If so, this is a lucky and serendipitous result.
#:Serendipitous scientific discoveries have been made many times, as when Henri Becquerel put a photographic plate in a dark drawer because the weather was cloudy, and thereby discovered radioactivity.
#:That the "foamlike" nature of space at short distances is contrary to the continuous nature presumed by classical mechanics and relativity has been known for some time. This is the problem that quantum gravity seeks to solve.
#''"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don't gel."''
#:Quoting things without explaining the context is often a bad idea, and the indicated item is a good example of this. It gives no hint of what the article from which the quote was taken is about. The article is about one scientist's contribution to the problem of unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. The scientist, Petr HoYava of Berkeley, has come up with an approach that he says eliminates the infinities that have plagued other unification attempts.
#:The two quoted sentences are HoYava's ''statement of the problem''. So it comes as no surprise that he says that there is a conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics. The very next paragraph begins:
#::The solution, HoYava says, is to snip threads that bind time to space at very high energies .... At low energies, general relativity emerges from this underlying framework ..."
#:It is well known that, just as classical mechanics emerges from quantum mechanics at non-microscopic scales, and classical mechanics emerges from relativity at low speeds, both relativity and quantum mechanics should emerge from the Grand Unified Theory (whatever that turns out to be) at the appropriate scales.
#''The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.''
#:The topology of wormholes is an interesting topic, widely discussed among theoretical physicists and mathematicians. There is much speculation about what they would be like (if they could exist at all under quantum gravity), and what kind of "cosmic censorship" or "chronology protection" theorems might make practical time travel impossible. The nature of these theorems seems to be intertwined with theories of quantum gravity and "grand unification", so the exact form of the "cosmic censorship", if it exists, can't be known until quantum mechanics and relativistic geometry are unified. It is an exciting field of research. No one believes that the "cosmic censorship" will take the form of relativity not being a true non-quantum approximation to reality.
#''The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.''
#:Since the 70's much work has been done on the subject of black hole thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973CMaPh..31..161B</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9307035v1.pdf</ref>, most notably by the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge [[Stephen Hawking]]. When quantum field theory is added to the analysis of black holes it is found that they do not possess "low entropy" (quite the opposite, in fact) and are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...7.2333B</ref>. The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article has labelled this work in a footnote as "[c]ontrived explanations", with no explanation for this characterization given.
#''Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.''
#:Please read the cited paper carefully. It is a survey of their observations over a 30 year period. They point out that their data matches general relativity to within 0.2 percent, and is now down in the "noise" of other effects, such as lack of accurate knowledge of just how far away the pulsars are, and lack of accurate knowledge of galactic constants. As they say in the abstract, "tighter bounds will be difficult to obtain." The paper, written in 2004, also notes that, because the pulsar beams are slowly tilting out of the line of sight to Earth, "A core component [of the emission] is quite prominent in the data taken in 1980-81, but it faded very significantly between 1980 and 1998 and was nearly gone by 2003."
#:That is why they are not releasing further data. 30 years is a fairly long time to watch a pair of pulsars. They're not doing the experiment any more—it did its job, and it's finished. No one drops cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa any more either.
#:The data are not diverging from the predictions.
#''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.''
#:The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses general relativity to achieve greater accuracy<ref>http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html</ref>.
#:In fact, relativity is what makes the magnetic force necessary. The magnetic force is used in, among other things, electric motors and generators.
#:Even if it were the case that no practical applications have come from relativity, that is irrelevant. The validity of a theory is not based on the creation of useful devices. It is based on its ability to accurately predict the results of an experiment. Relativity "has held up under extensive experimental scrutiny" <ref>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/</ref>.
#:If scientific theories were judged by their application in useful devices, the following Nobel-worthy theories would be rejected:
#::cosmic inflation
#::parity violation in the weak force
#::the "standard model", with strange/charm/top/bottom/mu/tau
#::the Chandrasekhar limit for white dwarf stars
#''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.''
#:The rules for calculating inertia and other questions of mechanics are well known. The inertia, that is, the way that a force affects an object's momentum, is well known. Hundreds of physics textbooks discuss this in great detail, in terms of the Lorentz transform and the concepts of the force and momentum 4-vectors. The "inertia" comes from what is now called the mass, which used to be called the "rest mass". Archaic treatments formulated this in terms of the "relativistic mass", which was different. The mass is a scalar, and has no direction. The formulas for calculating the motion in terms of forces, in the direction of motion or transverse to it, are well known.
#''Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.''
#:This seems to be another basic misunderstanding of relativity, from someone who gave up halfway through the textbook. Newtonian momentum (p = mv) does certainly indicate that a body with zero mass (''m'') must have zero momentum whatever its velocity (''v''). However, the relativistic equation for momentum is:
#::<math> p = \gamma m_0v\,</math>
#:where ''m''0 is the [[invariant mass|rest mass]] of the object and ''?'' is the Lorentz factor, given by
#::<math>\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2}}\,,</math>
#:where ''c'' is the [[speed of light]].
#:For the case of a photon, where rest mass is zero and ''v'' is equal to ''c'', this gives ''p'' as zero divided by zero - an undetermined value.
#:However, with the substitution of the famous E=mc2, where E is the energy of the body, the momentum equation can be rearranged to:
#::<math>pc = \sqrt{E^2 - m_0^2c^4}</math>
#:With a photon of zero rest mass, this gives:
#::<math>p = E/c\,</math>
#:Finally, substituting Planck's Equation for the energy of a photon <math>E = hf\,</math> where ''h'' is [[Planck's Constant]] and ''f'' is the frequency of the photon, we get the familiar (and experimentally demonstrated) value for a photon's momentum of:
#::<math>p = hf/c = h/\lambda\,</math>
#:where <math>\lambda</math> is the photon's wavelength.<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html</ref>
#''Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.''
#:There are no "conditions of a conservative field". A conservative field is one that has a curl of zero. Perhaps what was meant was that the gravitational field around the Sun, under Newtonian mechanics, is conservative. This is true because it is the gradient of an inverse-square scalar field, and all gradients have a curl of zero. Under relativity, the curl is also zero, due to the Bianchi identity and the symmetries of Riemann's tensor. See the extensive discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ACounterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=801452&oldid=799266 here].
#:The reference to the twin paradox suggests that the author thought that the passage of time is some kind of scalar field that should be obtainable as the path integral of a conservative vector field. It is not. Passage of time is a property of one's path through spacetime, and is similar to path length. (In fact, under the Lorentz/Minkowski metric, it is exactly path length.) Just as two paths from point A to point B on a sheet of paper can have different lengths, the paths of the twins can have different lengths, and hence different elapsed local times.
#''The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?''
#:The "Ehrenfest paradox" is not an actual paradox. Non-inertial relativistic motion of solid bodies is quite complicated, involving such concepts as "Born rigidity", "Langevin observers", the "Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric", and "quotient manifolds". In general, the subject is complicated, and has provided physicists with much food for thought. But it does not disprove relativity.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.''
#:The claims of that item are preposterous. Read the cited paper (or its abstract) carefully. Einstein's statement that clocks would run slower at the equator, due to time dilation, was correct according to special relativity alone. What Einstein didn't realize, because he wouldn't discover general relativity for another 10 years, was that the gravitational time shift would offset that.
#:A "geoid" (the shape dicussed in the paper) is a theoretical shape used in mathematical physics, that is in equilibrium between the effects of centrifugal force (from rotation) and gravity. It is essentially an oblate spheroid. It can be thought of as the shape a rotating planet would take if it were completely fluid. Or it could be thought of as the shape of "global sea level". Jupiter, because of its rapid rotation, has a very pronounced flattening at the poles. Since Jupiter is not solid, its shape is a geoid. The Earth is ''very nearly'' a geoid, of course. But not exactly, because of gravitational nonuniformities, and things like mountains, that can exist because of the Earth's rigidity. No one "made new assumptions about the Earth's shape" to justify anything. The assumption that the Earth's shape is a geoid is a theoretical assumption due to the ''approximately'' fluid nature of the Earth. But no one claims that the Earth's shape is anything other than what it is observed and measured to be.
#:What the paper is about is the fact that the effects of rotational speed and gravitational time dilation happen to cancel each other on an ideal geoid. So all clocks at "sea level" on an ideal geoid-shaped planet run at the same speed. Whether this result is implausible is not for us to say.
#:The cited paper does not refute relativity.
#''The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.''
#:The physics and mathematics underlying the "twin paradox" are well known. That one of the twins will have had to undergo different accelerations from the other before returning to the same point is what enables them to perceive different passage of time. This does not contradict relativity, and Einstein never said that it does. His explanation in terms of different acceleration is correct.
#:The comment about extending the length of the trip so that the acceleration would be ''de minimis'' is wrong. It seems to suggest that the acceleration could be reduced until it is negligible. It can be reduced by lengthening the trip, but it is not negligible. The Lorentz transform, and the equations of motion, are mathematically exact. The integral of a very small function over a long period is still significant. If the twins followed different paths in spacetime, which they must in order to measure different elapsed proper time, they must have undergone different accelerations, however small those differences may have been.
#:Of course, if they never come back to the same point, they could both undergo zero acceleration.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.''
#:Quantum field theory abounds with fields. The Higgs particle has a Higgs field. It has nothing to do with the "luminiferous aether".
#''Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.''
#:Time isn't a vector. It is a component of the vector space known as "spacetime". Vectors have negatives; the word "inverse" is not typically used here. While there are thermodynamic and other reasons for not allowing time to go backwards in the real world, the mathematics of spacetime allow vectors with any components, even negative ones.
#''In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.''
#:That a Bible verse "likely" refers to a scientific phenomenon does not make good science. The objection appears to be claiming that the Bible contradicts the Michelson-Morley experiment, so the latter must be wrong. The Michelson-Morley experiment is very well known, has been repeated countless times, and is incontrovertible. To suggest that the Bible verse in Genesis contradicts such an incontrovertible phenomenon does a disservice to both the Bible and to science.
#''It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].''
#:Modern formulations of the Lorentz aether theory may very well make it completely equivalent to relativity, both special and general. But that doesn't make relativity wrong; it just means that another theory is just as correct. The universal preference of the scientific community for relativity over the Lorentz theory is probably not based on religious faith, but on simplicity, as expressed in [[Occam's razor]]. The Lorentz theory postulates an aether that no experiment can possibly determine the properties of, while relativity postulates no aether.
#''Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."''
#:They are not "beyond understanding". They are simply beyond closed-form solution. Cosmologists work with approximate solutions, calculated by extensive computer calculations, all the time. A well-known example of this is the simulation of galaxy dynamics. Particle physicists do this also, in, for example, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) calculations. It is fortunate that the equations of Keplerian/Newtonian planetary motion were solvable by the mathematical methods of the 17th century—a closed-form solution to a second-order differential equation. Modern physics problems are much harder. But, with modern computers, we can solve the equations of gravity to enormous precision.
#''Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein's Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."''
#:The first cited reference, from which the quote was taken, is a totally crackpot web page, from a web site that seems to specialize in hosting crackpot papers. The writing is utterly illiterate and incoherent, as in this sentence: "According to Faraday's Law it can be explained as that, duo to the magnetic flux in conductor line changing, firstly induced electromotive force dU coming from the line-winded conductor to bring out voltage, then based on differential form <math>I = \frac{-\sigma s dU}{dl}</math> of Ohm's Law, the physical natural would be regarded as 'voltage before electric current' "
#''Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.''
#:The equations of electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations), and their connection with relativity, are well known. Hundreds of electrodynamics textbooks cover this subject. The equations are correct at all realizable speeds, even relativistic (''near'' the speed of light) speeds. (Maxwell's equations are said to be the only equations from classical physics that did not need to be modified for relativity.) The equations correctly describe the behavior of magnets (this is presumably what was meant by "solenoids"), charges, and electric and magnetic fields, even at speeds near the speed of light. Of course the equations don't work ''at'' the speed of light. The cited article never discussed speeds ''near'' the speed of light, only ''at'' the speed of light. The questioner was rightly taken to task for his physically unrealizable assumption.
#''General Relativity predicts how the gravitational fields of the Sun and Moon generate ocean tides. However, in the summer of 2009, tides along the East Coast of the United States were higher than expected.''
#:This one is utterly absurd. The calculation of the gravity of the Sun and Moon in producing tides has been known for hundreds of years, explained by Newtonian gravity. The effect of relativity on this is microscopic.
#:
#:The cited article is about the many things affecting the gross behavior of tides. Keep in mind that the factors affecting the tides involve a lot of hard-to-precisely-quantify things such as wind and ocean currents, and the melting of glaciers. As an example of how imprecise things are, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans differ in mean height by about 8 inches at the Panama Canal, and the tides are about 20 feet on the Pacific side and 1 foot on the Atlantic side. As another example, tides in the Bay of Fundy are as high as 53 feet. Tides are not a simple calculation from Newtonian or Einsteinian mechanics. The difference between Newtonian gravitation and Einsteinian gravitation is utterly insignificant in comparison to these gross effects.
#''The supermassive black hole within the Andromeda galaxy puzzled researchers by increasing in brightness by a factor of 100 in 2006.''
#:This item is about unexpected behavior of the supermassive black holes at the centers of many galaxies. Black holes are a prediction of relativity. The fact that people are still learning new things about them is hardly surprising.
#:
#:The cited article never mentions relativity or the possibility that relativity is wrong. In fact, the entire discussion is in the context of black holes. The second study was about a black hole at the center of a galaxy apparently wandering out of place. The hypothesis is that a merger of two galaxies was involved, and "the theoretical prediction is that when two black holes merge, the newly combined black hole receives a 'kick' due to the emission of gravitational waves ..." Gravitational waves are, of course, a specific prediction of general relativity.
#''Scientists are unable to explain a June 2012 cluster of earthquakes in Ireland.''
#:This one is even more absurd than the one above about tides. We cannot fathom why anyone would think earthquakes are a counterexample to relativity.
#''Apparently, the equations of General Relativity do not apply to the motions of extra-solar planets.''
#:This refers to a recently discovered planetary system in which another star is closer than had previously been seen in such a system. Systems involving two stars and a planet constitute the "three body problem", which has never been solved analytically. But if only one of the objects is massive, such as the Sun, the system can be stable for all practical purposes, which is why the solar system is effectively stable even though it is a many-body problem. But two stars make the system much more problematical. In the past, such systems have had the other star far enough away that it has essentially no effect. The Gamma Cephei system is different, and scientists are eager to analyze it in detail. They are frustrated in this by the extremely scant data about the planet's orbit, since that information has to be gleaned from tiny spectroscopic shifts (in only one dimension!) of the two stars.
#:
#:The effect of Relativity on this is, of course, the precession of the "perihelion" due to the effects of General Relativity. From the information that has been gathered, the precession should be about 1.14 arcseconds per Earth century, or about 1/37th that of Mercury. The precession of Mercury was established with accurate visual observations. Measuring something 1/37th as large, from the Doppler shift in spectroscopic measurements, is utterly beyond current technology. Other than that, there is no reason to consider relativity. Classical mechanics will do just fine.
#''General Relativity fails to predict the Allais Effect.''
#:A quick Google search will show that there is no "concerted effort to suppress knowledge about the phenomenon". Tom van Flandern (no darling of those who accept relativity; he has been cited at Conservapedia in the "Lack of evidence for Relativity" section) explains the phenomenon in his 2003 paper [http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v67/i2/e022002 Allais gravity and pendulum effects during solar eclipses explained]: "Here we show that an unusual phenomenon that occurs only during solar eclipses, rapid air mass movement for the bulk of the atmosphere above normal cloud levels, appears to be a sufficient explanation for both the magnitude and behavior of the anomaly previously reported in these pages."
#:The fact that "attempts to duplicate the result have been reported as failures" is certainly consistent with an effort to suppress knowledge, but it's also consistent with the effect not existing.
#''Scientists at the Collider Detector at Fermilab collided protons and anti-protons ....''
#:Actually, the energy released in a collision should equal the initial kinetic energy of the colliding particles plus their rest mass energy, ''minus the rest mass energy of the resultant particles''. There is no suggestion that this wasn't the case in the cited experiment.
#:The title of the cited article is "Has new physics been found at the ageing Tevatron?" It is about the discovery of more muons than predicted, as well as some muons that appear to have originated from outside of the "pipe" area of the Tevatron. There was no suggestion at all that relativity was violated. The article was simply about a new discovery. Relativity never made the claim that no new physics would ever again be discovered.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:science]]

Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-09-18T02:44:35Z

JudyJ: Track a reordering on the other page (please be careful, guys!) and respond to the two new ones.

This is intended as an article rebutting the points in the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article. That article's talk page has proven to be less than satisfactory for this purpose, because it gets archived, and much of its material has degenerated into personal disputes. We believe that the two sides of the issue are better handled in two articles—this one and [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], rather than a talk page.

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

#''The orbital radius of the Moon's orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts''.
#:This could be a counterexample to both GR and Newtonian gravity--in both, the radius is defined in terms of conserved quantities.
#::The objection has been raised that this would still be a counterexample to Relativity.
#:::Yes, if it were actually true that the Moon's orbit is undergoing some kind of anomalous perturbation, it would indeed be a disproof of Relativity, Newtonian mechanics, and, in fact, all of physics since Galileo.
#::::Actually, the average radius of the Moon's orbit is in fact increasing. By 38mm a year. This was first predicted in the late 19th century and actually measured since at least the early 1970's and more accurately thereafter thanks to the mirrors left for that purpose by the Apollo astronauts. The reason for this is well-known and simple enough to be explained on science-oriented TV shows from time to time. To put it simply: the Moon pulls on the Earth causing the tides and slowing down its rotation slightly, lengthening it's day by 2 milliseconds every 100 years. Reciprocally, the Earth pulls on the Moon and accelerates it slightly thus increasing the height of its orbit and energy is conserved. For a more complete explanation see <ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124</ref>. This behavoiur, predicted over 100 years ago, observed and measured, is in no way "anomalous" and relativity, general, special or otherwise doesn't really concern itself with tidal mechanics so on that point at least physics, Galillean, Newtonian and Einsteinian, are quite safe for now.
#''The Pioneer anomaly.''
#:The "Pioneer anomaly" is the deviation in the motion of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft from their predicted motion, at the distance of Saturn and beyond. It should be noted that the anomaly is about 1000 times greater than the difference between the classical Newtonian prediction and the prediction of relativity, so this is not a problem with relativity ''per se''; it is more general than that.
#:Calculating the force caused by heat (that is, miniscule amounts of infrared radiation) from the radioactive power source was one of the first effects that was examined. The anomaly arose when this and other known effects could not fully explain the deviation.
#:The problem is believed to have been solved by taking into account the reflection of the radiation from the power source off of the back of the antenna dish<ref>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/</ref>. The solution is sometimes described as an application of "Phong shading", a technique of computer graphics that is now considered imprecise. But Phong shading itself is not what is important. The "ray tracing" computer graphics technique that underlies Phong shading was what inspired the scientists to take reflection into account.
#''the solar flattening is ... too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation.''
#:This observation is interesting, but the predictions of oblateness come from analysis of fluid mechanics; relativity is not involved, and the cited paper makes no mention of relativity.
#:
#:We expect a very large rotating body to show oblateness according to well-known principles involving centrifugal force. This is particularly easy to observe with Jupiter, though the other planets, including Earth, show it too. Scientists do not know why the Sun exhibits nearly zero oblateness, but relativity is not believed to be the cause.
#:
#:Now it happens that there ''is'' a connection between solar oblateness and the calculation of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and that involves General Relativity. When checking the observed precession against the effect predicted by Relativity, one needs to subtract the effect of solar oblateness, along with the other effects, such as equinoctial precession and the gravitational effects of other planets. The effect of solar oblateness is a mere .0254 arcseconds per century, insignificant in comparison with precession (about 5500) and other planets' gravity (about 550). The figure of .0254 was calculated based on what fluid dynamics predicted, and was subtracted in the figures quoted below in item #9. When that tiny effect is removed, the error bars still overlap that for the GR prediction.
#''Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity. The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement''.
#:This is an interesting observation. The world's best scientific minds are looking into it. That relativity is incorrect is not being taken seriously as a possible explanation.
#:'''Update:''' The problem seems to have been caused by a faulty cable connection between a computer and a GPS unit. When the connection was repaired, the travel time increased by 60 nanoseconds, which had been the amount of the anomaly <ref>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/22/technology-faster-than-light-neutrinos.html</ref> <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/22/loose-wire-led-to-stunning-faster-than-light-particle-finding/?intcmp=features</ref>. The claims of faster-than-light neutrinos have now been refuted very thoroughly<ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html</ref><ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/once-again-physicists-debunk.html</ref>.
#:The objection has been raised that a recent news report from the BBC ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is also contradictory, since neutrinos have mass and are therefore forbidden by relativity to travel at exactly the speed of light. Since the neutrino energies were 17GeV, and the current estimate for the neutrino mass is about 0.25eV, the deviation from the speed of light would be about 1 part in 1022. This means that the neutrinos would arrive at the detector about .26x10-24 seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is one quarter of a billionth of a femtosecond, or about .26x10-15 of a nanosecond. The accuracy of the GPS units and cesium clocks used in the measurement is greater than a nanosecond, so the discrepancy cannot possibly be detected. It is unfortunate that the claim "the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos" was taken so literally.
#''Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").''
#:This may be another case of the Pioneer anomaly, or it may be something else. However, it is very unlikely that it shows that relativity is wrong and Newtonian mechanics is correct. Saying that, every time someone finds some phenomenon that is puzzling, that shows that relativity is wrong, is not a convincing way to do science. The cited paper is about unexpected behavior of some spacecraft as they use "gravity assists" in near-Earth flybys. The hypothesized causes involve errors in the mathematical models to calculate such effects as relativistic effects (the detailed calculation of them, not the question of whether they exist), tidal effects, Earth radiation pressure, or atmospheric drag. The paper suggests that most of those can be ruled out, though there could be round-off and integration errors, or errors in the spherical harmonic representation of Earth's gravity field.
#''Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "dark matter" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it due to the acceleration of various parts of galaxies that accelerated funny that led to dark matter (based on simple Newtonian dynamics)?
#''The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "dark energy" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:This is the dark energy/cosmological constant argument. The cosmological constant was added by Einstein after he discovered that his field equations (<math>\mathbf{G}=8\pi \mathbf{T}</math>) predicted that the universe was expanding, contradicting his firm philosophical belief in a static universe. So he inserted <math>\Lambda \mathbf{g}</math> to the LHS so that it would predict a static universe. A few years later, Hubble showed the universe to be expanding, and Einstein called the cosmological constant the worst mistake of his career. So, it sort of had a bad reputation, and people didn't want to seriously consider it, until recent observations have shown the universe's expansion to be accelerating forced them to do so. It could have had a very different history. Einstein could have had that term in the EFE's from the start, and pointed out that it would determine if the universe's expansion was accelerating (or not expanding at all!) and it would take further observation to determine its value.
#''Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.''
#:A footnote goes on to say that "In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01) ..."
#:Considering only the ''anomalous'' precession, that is, the precession that remains after all known other factors (other planets and asteroids, solar oblateness) have been accounted for, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values are:
#::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
#::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
#::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
#::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
#::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijpers 2008]]
#:These error bars, and that of the relativity formula, all overlap.
#:The formula for mechanics under general relativity is complicated, but it is not contrived or conformed. "Conformed" suggests that it was somehow adjusted or "tweaked" to match the 42.98 figure. The formula is
#:::<math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>
#:To begin to explain the formula, Newton's law of gravity, combining F = ma and <math>F = \frac{KMm}{r^2}\,</math>, is
#::<math>a = \frac{KM}{r^2}\,</math>
#:In Einstein's equation, <math>T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "stress-energy tensor", and <math>8 \pi T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> gives the density of the Sun, taking the place of <math>\frac{M}{r^2}\,</math>. <math>G_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "Einstein curvature tensor", and says how spacetime curves to create an apparent gravitational acceleration.
#:There is nothing to tweak to get a value of 42.98 arcseconds. 8 is 8. <math>\pi\,</math> is <math>\pi\,</math>. K is Newton's constant of gravitation in both formulas.
#:
#::::The above discussion notwithstanding, more sophisticated technology has measured a precession of 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01, which disproves the prediction of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Notice how publication of data stopped two decades ago when the observations diverged from the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
#:Measurements of planetary motion are now calculated relative to the "International Celestial Reference Frame" (ICFR), replacing the older, and much less accurate "equinoctial" frame. The older measurements got a value of about 5600 arcseconds/century for the precession of Mercury, nearly all of which (5025 arcseconds) was because of the rotation of the "equinoctial" frame. The ICFR frame removes that source of uncertainty, and, with the very accurate radar measurements conducted by NASA between 1987 and 1997<ref>[http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf]</ref>, gets a value of 574.10±0.65 arcseconds observed, in good agreement with the predicted 574.64±0.69 value.
#:
#:The ICFR is described in [http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Publications/TechnicalNotes/tn32.html this] document, dated 2003.
#''Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found. Sound like global warming?''
#:True, the ''direct'' searches for gravitational waves have not yet yielded any clear results, though indirect observations have been made (the Hulse/Taylor observations.) Before people dismiss indirect observations, recall that no one has ever seen an electron.
#:The Earth-based LIGO detectors have, so far, not detected any unambiguous gravitational wave signatures from such events as a black-hole merger. It is barely sensitive enough to find such things in the Milky Way or very nearby galaxies. It is being upgraded in a plan that should complete in 2014. It is hoped that, after the upgrade, it will be able to see these events clearly and unambiguously.
#:The space-based LISA detectors have not been built yet, and the original proposal has been scrapped because of budgetary problems. A new version, called "eLISA" has been proposed, and should be sensitive to events as far away as redshift 15.
#:Whether these experiments are a good use of money is another question, one that has no bearing on whether relativity is correct.
#::The objection has been raised that the experiments should not have been funded if scientists were going to ignore negative results.
#:::The results are only partly negative. The scientists knew all along that a certain amount of luck would be involved in finding a sufficiently strong signal within the time frame of the experiment. The failure so far does not mean that black-hole mergers do not emit gravitational waves; just that they haven't been lucky enough to find them. They will continue to search.
#:'''Update:''' Another, much more commonplace observation of gravitational wave emission has neen reported<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19408363 BBC article</ref>. The article suggests that, since it shows detectable gravitational waves are more common than previously thought, there is optimism that the eLISA detector, when completed, might find one source per week.
#:This has nothing to do with global warming.
#''The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.''
#:The formulas for velocity, momentum, and mass can in fact be written in such a way that they appear to have discontinuities, just as the tangent function has discontinuities while the underlying sine and cosine functions do not. But they can also be written in a form that does not show discontinuities.
#:All particles, with or without mass, can have any value of momentum. The formula for the velocity of a particle, in terms of its mass and momentum, is
#:::<math>v = \frac{pc}{\sqrt{m^2c^2+p^2}}</math>
#:For a particle with mass, this means that momentum of zero gives a speed of zero, and, as the momentum approaches infinity, the speed approaches c.
#:For a massless particle, the speed is always c.
#''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''
#:The simple answer is, unequivocally, that it acts on the 'relativistic' mass. The question seems to relate to a simple misunderstanding of Special Relativity. Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance in the body's mass with regard to the direction of the force. Thus to a given observer, a force in any direction will operate on the same mass. However, to a different observer, this mass may be different, although still the constant with regard to the direction of the force.
#''The observed lack of curvature in overall space.''
#:Spacetime has very definite curvature near any massive object—this is what makes gravity work. The '''global''' curvature of spacetime is an altogether different issue. Whether the average global curvature is zero has consequences for cosmological theories, but it has essentially no effect on the curvature that keeps the Earth in its orbit. If it did have an effect, the issue would have been settled long ago.
#''The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.''
#:We're still working on a quantum theory of gravity; this isn't so much a counter-example as saying that (classical) GR isn't valid in that domain.
#''The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.''
#:Special Relativity only forbids the transmission of matter, energy or information at a speed faster than light. There are plenty of other things that can move faster than light. Consider a laser on Earth which is rotating on a pivot, whose light shines onto the hull of a satellite 200,000Km away (2e8 metres). If the laser rotates at a sedentary one revolution ever four seconds, the speed of the laser beam's tip crossing the satellite's hull is 3.14e8 metres per second - faster than the speed of light. However, this is not a transfer of information. Any information is travelling from Earth to the satellite, obeying the universal speed limit. Similarly, the only information that can be transmitted by the quantum entanglement of two particles is from the originator of the particles to the two observers, not from one observer to another. Faster than light transmission of information using quantum entanglement has never been observed, nor has even conceived how such a mechanism might work.<ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612</ref>
#''The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.''
#:As an argument against relativity, there are two reasons that this is invalid (beyond simply questioning the evidential validity of the Bible):
#::a) These passages clearly refer to a [[miracle]]. A miracle, being an act of God, is not subject to the laws of physics.
#::b) It is highly debatable as to whether the verses do describe [[action-at-a-distance]] in the sense of an action whose influence travels instantaneously (and therefore faster than the speed of light). This itself may be argued from two viewpoints:
#:::i) When reading these passages, as with consideration of many apparent relativistic anomalies, the true picture of causality must be considered. In each case there are two apparent events. Event A - Jesus does something (says 'thy son liveth', says 'be it unto thee even as thou wilt', or Christ's spirit leaving His body). Event B - the apparent result (the son lives, her daughter is made whole, or the earth quakes). However, it is not the case in any of these examples that A causes B. Both A and B are caused by a third event. In the first two cases it is Christ's thought that causes the miracle and that causes His lips to announce the miracle. This thought would have occurred fractions of a second before either event, and is the non-instantaneous cause of both. In the last case it is Christ's death that is the precursor and cause of both events.
#:::ii) It must be considered that at the time when the Gospels were written, neither their authors nor their intended readers were aware of any concept of the speed of light and were unable to measure the billionths of a second difference between the events being considered here. Thus just as in modern parlance the phrase 'at the same moment' has a tolerance of milliseconds (unless specifically couched to mean otherwise) so do the various terms used by the Evangelists. They would never have considered it an important issue, and would therefore not have worried about the degree of precision.
#::::Miracles do not violate logic, and the [[Theory of Relativity]] asserts that these [[action-at-a-distance]] miracles described in the [[Gospels]] are impossible. No plausible medium for these miracles, even if they were non-instantaneous action-at-a-distance, has been proposed.
#''The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.''
#:Gravitons are a prediction of [[Quantum Theory]], not of relativity, although the concept is an extension of the relativistic idea that forces take a finite time to be transmitted over a distance.
#:No one expects to observe gravitons. Calculations show that it is well-nigh impossible with any conceivable detector that we could build. No one is designing, funding, or building any apparatus to search for gravitons.
#:Now it happens that theoretical physicists discuss and speculate on the existence and nature of such things as gravitons as part of their theoretical work. Some of these discussions take place among scientists who receive their salaries from various government agencies that are funded by taxpayers. Whether all of the things that scientists think about, talk about, and write about constitute a good use of money is not for us to say.
#''Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do not experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity''
#:Whilst this observation is unconfirmed, if true it would still not invalidate relativity. Many things may vary with position in space, and relativity does not deny this. There is no suggestion that the fine-structure constant is different at the same point in space for observers in different non-inertial frame, as the 'counterexample' implies.
#''The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a black hole. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."''
#:When physicists encounter something puzzling, their first reaction is usually not to assume that it shows that relativity is wrong. In fact the cited article never mentions relativity at all. It is about "magnetars", a type of neutron star about which very little is known, other than their extremely strong magnetic fields.
#:Many scientific discoveries have arisen from observations that were puzzling at first. Edwin Hubble's observations of galactic redshift led to the realization that the universe is expanding isotropically. The observations by Jocelyn Bell and Antony Hewish, of periodic pulsation in the radio emissions of a star, were so puzzling at first that they seemed to suggest transmissions from intelligent extraterrestrials. They had actually discovered pulsars. When Carl Anderson saw unexplained particle tracks in a cloud chamber, he had discovered antiparticles.
#:None of these people assumed that the explanation for these observations was that relativity was wrong. They were all astrophysicists and were quite familiar with relativity. In fact, Anderson's antiparticles had been predicted by the Dirac equation, a synthesis of special relativity and the Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics, from a few years earlier.
#''The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.''
#:It is utterly baffling how anyone could make such an assertion. The insights from relativity are multitudinous. Relativity forms the basis for astronomy, cosmology, electrodynamics, and many other fields. The interconnection between the electric and magnetic forces is now seen to be a straightforward consequence of relativity. Relativity combined with quantum mechanics are the basis of all of contemporary physics.
#:The Dirac equation, which gives rise to antiparticles and the theory of spinors, was an early example of introducing relatitivity into the Schrödinger equation.
#:More generally, special relativity was combined with quantum theory to produce [[quantum field theory]] (QFT). An example of a QFT is [[quantum electrodynamics]], the most precise theory in physics. Furthermore, string theory is Lorentz invariant and produces general relativity in the low energy limit.
#''The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.''
#:We are baffled that anyone would connect this problem with relativity. The non-relativity principle of conservation of mass has been known, in general, for hundreds of years, going back to the time of the alchemists, and has been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. The principle of conservation of energy has also been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. Relativity simply generalizes this to a principle of both together, with even greater precision. So, in principle, it is recognized that the mass of the standard kilogram could change if an energy transfer took place. But no combustion, corrosion, or nuclear decay is suspected of having taken place. In any case, the amount of energy that would have to have been released is 1.25 megawatt-hours, which would certainly have been noticed.
#:Relativity does not promise uniformity of the universe any more strongly than classical physics did. The apparent change in mass of the standard kilogram is simply a mystery.
#''The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 23, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about speculation that the constant "alpha" (see item 17 above) may not be constant. It might have decreased, by 45 parts per billion, as recently (in cosmic time) as two billion years ago, based on data from the Oklo "natural fission reactor". Other measurements have been made of alpha at earlier times, such as measurement of light from distant quasars. These measurements suggest that alpha has increased by a few parts per 105 in 12 billion years.
#:There is plenty of literature on theories about change in alpha, and some of it indicates that this may be due to change in the speed of light. Specifically, the Oklo data may suggest that the speed of light may have been increasing slightly. (This is the opposite of the direction of change claimed by fundamentalists, but is much smaller in any case.)
#:Speculation on a different speed of light in the past may relate to theories of "cosmic inflation", which touches on the question of why the Cosmic Background Radiation is so nearly isotropic, which indicates a near-uniformity of temperature, which requires inflation or some equivalent mechanism.
#:None of the scientists working in this area seem to doubt the fundamental correctness of relativity.
#''"According to Einstein's view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 23, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about a very recent and exciting development in fundamental theoretical physics, generally called the "holographic principle". This proposes that our perceived 3-dimensional space actually arises from a "hologram" on a 2-dimensional space. Much has been written about this recently, including the best-selling book ''The Hidden Reality'' by Brian Greene. This hologram manifests itself in the "foamlike" ripples of spacetime, at the scale of the Planck length, which is so small that there seemed to be no way to detect it directly.
#:But it seems that some "inexplicable static" in the results of another unrelated experiment, searching for gravitational waves, may be the first hints of the holographic nature of space. If so, this is a lucky and serendipitous result.
#:Serendipitous scientific discoveries have been made many times, as when Henri Becquerel put a photographic plate in a dark drawer because the weather was cloudy, and thereby discovered radioactivity.
#:That the "foamlike" nature of space at short distances is contrary to the continuous nature presumed by classical mechanics and relativity has been known for some time. This is the problem that quantum gravity seeks to solve.
#''"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don't gel."''
#:Quoting things without explaining the context is often a bad idea, and the indicated item is a good example of this. It gives no hint of what the article from which the quote was taken is about. The article is about one scientist's contribution to the problem of unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. The scientist, Petr HoYava of Berkeley, has come up with an approach that he says eliminates the infinities that have plagued other unification attempts.
#:The two quoted sentences are HoYava's ''statement of the problem''. So it comes as no surprise that he says that there is a conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics. The very next paragraph begins:
#::The solution, HoYava says, is to snip threads that bind time to space at very high energies .... At low energies, general relativity emerges from this underlying framework ..."
#:It is well known that, just as classical mechanics emerges from quantum mechanics at non-microscopic scales, and classical mechanics emerges from relativity at low speeds, both relativity and quantum mechanics should emerge from the Grand Unified Theory (whatever that turns out to be) at the appropriate scales.
#''The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.''
#:The topology of wormholes is an interesting topic, widely discussed among theoretical physicists and mathematicians. There is much speculation about what they would be like (if they could exist at all under quantum gravity), and what kind of "cosmic censorship" or "chronology protection" theorems might make practical time travel impossible. The nature of these theorems seems to be intertwined with theories of quantum gravity and "grand unification", so the exact form of the "cosmic censorship", if it exists, can't be known until quantum mechanics and relativistic geometry are unified. It is an exciting field of research. No one believes that the "cosmic censorship" will take the form of relativity not being a true non-quantum approximation to reality.
#''The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.''
#:Since the 70's much work has been done on the subject of black hole thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973CMaPh..31..161B</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9307035v1.pdf</ref>, most notably by the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge [[Stephen Hawking]]. When quantum field theory is added to the analysis of black holes it is found that they do not possess "low entropy" (quite the opposite, in fact) and are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...7.2333B</ref>. The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article has labelled this work in a footnote as "[c]ontrived explanations", with no explanation for this characterization given.
#''Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.''
#:Please read the cited paper carefully. It is a survey of their observations over a 30 year period. They point out that their data matches general relativity to within 0.2 percent, and is now down in the "noise" of other effects, such as lack of accurate knowledge of just how far away the pulsars are, and lack of accurate knowledge of galactic constants. As they say in the abstract, "tighter bounds will be difficult to obtain." The paper, written in 2004, also notes that, because the pulsar beams are slowly tilting out of the line of sight to Earth, "A core component [of the emission] is quite prominent in the data taken in 1980-81, but it faded very significantly between 1980 and 1998 and was nearly gone by 2003."
#:That is why they are not releasing further data. 30 years is a fairly long time to watch a pair of pulsars. They're not doing the experiment any more—it did its job, and it's finished. No one drops cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa any more either.
#:The data are not diverging from the predictions.
#''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.''
#:The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses general relativity to achieve greater accuracy<ref>http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html</ref>.
#:In fact, relativity is what makes the magnetic force necessary. The magnetic force is used in, among other things, electric motors and generators.
#:Even if it were the case that no practical applications have come from relativity, that is irrelevant. The validity of a theory is not based on the creation of useful devices. It is based on its ability to accurately predict the results of an experiment. Relativity "has held up under extensive experimental scrutiny" <ref>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/</ref>.
#:If scientific theories were judged by their application in useful devices, the following Nobel-worthy theories would be rejected:
#::cosmic inflation
#::parity violation in the weak force
#::the "standard model", with strange/charm/top/bottom/mu/tau
#::the Chandrasekhar limit for white dwarf stars
#''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.''
#:The rules for calculating inertia and other questions of mechanics are well known. The inertia, that is, the way that a force affects an object's momentum, is well known. Hundreds of physics textbooks discuss this in great detail, in terms of the Lorentz transform and the concepts of the force and momentum 4-vectors. The "inertia" comes from what is now called the mass, which used to be called the "rest mass". Archaic treatments formulated this in terms of the "relativistic mass", which was different. The mass is a scalar, and has no direction. The formulas for calculating the motion in terms of forces, in the direction of motion or transverse to it, are well known.
#''Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.''
#:This seems to be another basic misunderstanding of relativity, from someone who gave up halfway through the textbook. Newtonian momentum (p = mv) does certainly indicate that a body with zero mass (''m'') must have zero momentum whatever its velocity (''v''). However, the relativistic equation for momentum is:
#::<math> p = \gamma m_0v\,</math>
#:where ''m''0 is the [[invariant mass|rest mass]] of the object and ''?'' is the Lorentz factor, given by
#::<math>\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2}}\,,</math>
#:where ''c'' is the [[speed of light]].
#:For the case of a photon, where rest mass is zero and ''v'' is equal to ''c'', this gives ''p'' as zero divided by zero - an undetermined value.
#:However, with the substitution of the famous E=mc2, where E is the energy of the body, the momentum equation can be rearranged to:
#::<math>pc = \sqrt{E^2 - m_0^2c^4}</math>
#:With a photon of zero rest mass, this gives:
#::<math>p = E/c\,</math>
#:Finally, substituting Planck's Equation for the energy of a photon <math>E = hf\,</math> where ''h'' is [[Planck's Constant]] and ''f'' is the frequency of the photon, we get the familiar (and experimentally demonstrated) value for a photon's momentum of:
#::<math>p = hf/c = h/\lambda\,</math>
#:where <math>\lambda</math> is the photon's wavelength.<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html</ref>
#''Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.''
#:There are no "conditions of a conservative field". A conservative field is one that has a curl of zero. Perhaps what was meant was that the gravitational field around the Sun, under Newtonian mechanics, is conservative. This is true because it is the gradient of an inverse-square scalar field, and all gradients have a curl of zero. Under relativity, the curl is also zero, due to the Bianchi identity and the symmetries of Riemann's tensor. See the extensive discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ACounterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=801452&oldid=799266 here].
#:The reference to the twin paradox suggests that the author thought that the passage of time is some kind of scalar field that should be obtainable as the path integral of a conservative vector field. It is not. Passage of time is a property of one's path through spacetime, and is similar to path length. (In fact, under the Lorentz/Minkowski metric, it is exactly path length.) Just as two paths from point A to point B on a sheet of paper can have different lengths, the paths of the twins can have different lengths, and hence different elapsed local times.
#''The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?''
#:The "Ehrenfest paradox" is not an actual paradox. Non-inertial relativistic motion of solid bodies is quite complicated, involving such concepts as "Born rigidity", "Langevin observers", the "Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric", and "quotient manifolds". In general, the subject is complicated, and has provided physicists with much food for thought. But it does not disprove relativity.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.''
#:The claims of that item are preposterous. Read the cited paper (or its abstract) carefully. Einstein's statement that clocks would run slower at the equator, due to time dilation, was correct according to special relativity alone. What Einstein didn't realize, because he wouldn't discover general relativity for another 10 years, was that the gravitational time shift would offset that.
#:A "geoid" (the shape dicussed in the paper) is a theoretical shape used in mathematical physics, that is in equilibrium between the effects of centrifugal force (from rotation) and gravity. It is essentially an oblate spheroid. It can be thought of as the shape a rotating planet would take if it were completely fluid. Or it could be thought of as the shape of "global sea level". Jupiter, because of its rapid rotation, has a very pronounced flattening at the poles. Since Jupiter is not solid, its shape is a geoid. The Earth is ''very nearly'' a geoid, of course. But not exactly, because of gravitational nonuniformities, and things like mountains, that can exist because of the Earth's rigidity. No one "made new assumptions about the Earth's shape" to justify anything. The assumption that the Earth's shape is a geoid is a theoretical assumption due to the ''approximately'' fluid nature of the Earth. But no one claims that the Earth's shape is anything other than what it is observed and measured to be.
#:What the paper is about is the fact that the effects of rotational speed and gravitational time dilation happen to cancel each other on an ideal geoid. So all clocks at "sea level" on an ideal geoid-shaped planet run at the same speed. Whether this result is implausible is not for us to say.
#:The cited paper does not refute relativity.
#''The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.''
#:The physics and mathematics underlying the "twin paradox" are well known. That one of the twins will have had to undergo different accelerations from the other before returning to the same point is what enables them to perceive different passage of time. This does not contradict relativity, and Einstein never said that it does. His explanation in terms of different acceleration is correct.
#:The comment about extending the length of the trip so that the acceleration would be ''de minimis'' is wrong. It seems to suggest that the acceleration could be reduced until it is negligible. It can be reduced by lengthening the trip, but it is not negligible. The Lorentz transform, and the equations of motion, are mathematically exact. The integral of a very small function over a long period is still significant. If the twins followed different paths in spacetime, which they must in order to measure different elapsed proper time, they must have undergone different accelerations, however small those differences may have been.
#:Of course, if they never come back to the same point, they could both undergo zero acceleration.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.''
#:Quantum field theory abounds with fields. The Higgs particle has a Higgs field. It has nothing to do with the "luminiferous aether".
#''Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.''
#:Time isn't a vector. It is a component of the vector space known as "spacetime". Vectors have negatives; the word "inverse" is not typically used here. While there are thermodynamic and other reasons for not allowing time to go backwards in the real world, the mathematics of spacetime allow vectors with any components, even negative ones.
#''In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.''
#:That a Bible verse "likely" refers to a scientific phenomenon does not make good science. The objection appears to be claiming that the Bible contradicts the Michelson-Morley experiment, so the latter must be wrong. The Michelson-Morley experiment is very well known, has been repeated countless times, and is incontrovertible. To suggest that the Bible verse in Genesis contradicts such an incontrovertible phenomenon does a disservice to both the Bible and to science.
#''It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].''
#:Modern formulations of the Lorentz aether theory may very well make it completely equivalent to relativity, both special and general. But that doesn't make relativity wrong; it just means that another theory is just as correct. The universal preference of the scientific community for relativity over the Lorentz theory is probably not based on religious faith, but on simplicity, as expressed in [[Occam's razor]]. The Lorentz theory postulates an aether that no experiment can possibly determine the properties of, while relativity postulates no aether.
#''Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."''
#:They are not "beyond understanding". They are simply beyond closed-form solution. Cosmologists work with approximate solutions, calculated by extensive computer calculations, all the time. A well-known example of this is the simulation of galaxy dynamics. Particle physicists do this also, in, for example, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) calculations. It is fortunate that the equations of Keplerian/Newtonian planetary motion were solvable by the mathematical methods of the 17th century—a closed-form solution to a second-order differential equation. Modern physics problems are much harder. But, with modern computers, we can solve the equations of gravity to enormous precision.
#''Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein's Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."''
#:The first cited reference, from which the quote was taken, is a totally crackpot web page, from a web site that seems to specialize in hosting crackpot papers. The writing is utterly illiterate and incoherent, as in this sentence: "According to Faraday's Law it can be explained as that, duo to the magnetic flux in conductor line changing, firstly induced electromotive force dU coming from the line-winded conductor to bring out voltage, then based on differential form <math>I = \frac{-\sigma s dU}{dl}</math> of Ohm's Law, the physical natural would be regarded as 'voltage before electric current' "
#''Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.''
#:The equations of electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations), and their connection with relativity, are well known. Hundreds of electrodynamics textbooks cover this subject. The equations are correct at all realizable speeds, even relativistic (''near'' the speed of light) speeds. (Maxwell's equations are said to be the only equations from classical physics that did not need to be modified for relativity.) The equations correctly describe the behavior of magnets (this is presumably what was meant by "solenoids"), charges, and electric and magnetic fields, even at speeds near the speed of light. Of course the equations don't work ''at'' the speed of light. The cited article never discussed speeds ''near'' the speed of light, only ''at'' the speed of light. The questioner was rightly taken to task for his physically unrealizable assumption.
#''General Relativity predicts how the gravitational fields of the Sun and Moon generate ocean tides. However, in the summer of 2009, tides along the East Coast of the United States were higher than expected.''
#:This one is utterly absurd. The calculation of the gravity of the Sun and Moon in producing tides has been known for hundreds of years, explained by Newtonian gravity. The effect of relativity on this is microscopic.
#:
#:The cited article is about the many things affecting the gross behavior of tides. Keep in mind that the factors affecting the tides involve a lot of hard-to-precisely-quantify things such as wind and ocean currents, and the melting of glaciers. As an example of how imprecise things are, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans differ in mean height by about 8 inches at the Panama Canal, and the tides are about 20 feet on the Pacific side and 1 foot on the Atlantic side. As another example, tides in the Bay of Fundy are as high as 53 feet. Tides are not a simple calculation from Newtonian or Einsteinian mechanics. The difference between Newtonian gravitation and Einsteinian gravitation is utterly insignificant in comparison to these gross effects.
#''The supermassive black hole within the Andromeda galaxy puzzled researchers by increasing in brightness by a factor of 100 in 2006.''
#:This item is about unexpected behavior of the supermassive black holes at the centers of many galaxies. Black holes are a prediction of relativity. The fact that people are still learning new things about them is hardly surprising.
#:
#:The cited article never mentions relativity or the possibility that relativity is wrong. In fact, the entire discussion is in the context of black holes. The second study was about a black hole at the center of a galaxy apparently wandering out of place. The hypothesis is that a merger of two galaxies was involved, and "the theoretical prediction is that when two black holes merge, the newly combined black hole receives a 'kick' due to the emission of gravitational waves ..." Gravitational waves are, of course, a specific prediction of general relativity.
#''Scientists are unable to explain a June 2012 cluster of earthquakes in Ireland.''
#:This one is even more absurd than the one above about tides. We cannot fathom why anyone would think earthquakes are a counterexample to relativity.
#''Apparently, the equations of General Relativity do not apply to the motions of extra-solar planets.''
#:This refers to a recently discovered planetary system in which another star is closer than had previously been seen in such a system. Systems involving two stars and a planet constitute the "three body problem", which has never been solved analytically. But if only one of the objects is massive, such as the Sun, the system can be stable for all practical purposes, which is why the solar system is effectively stable even though it is a many-body problem. But two stars make the system much more problematical. In the past, such systems have had the other star far enough away that it has essentially no effect. The Gamma Cephei system is different, and scientists are eager to analyze it in detail. They are frustrated in this by the extremely scant data about the planet's orbit, since that information has to be gleaned from tiny spectroscopic shifts (in only one dimension!) of the two stars.
#:
#:The effect of Relativity on this is, of course, the precession of the "perihelion" due to the effects of General Relativity. From the information that has been gathered, the precession should be about 1.14 arcseconds per Earth century, or about 1/37th that of Mercury. The precession of Mercury was established with accurate visual observations. Measuring something 1/37th as large, from the Doppler shift in spectroscopic measurements, is utterly beyond current technology. Other than that, there is no reason to consider relativity. Classical mechanics will do just fine.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:science]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-09-18T02:36:30Z

JudyJ: /* Removing material */ Touché!

<big>'''For a point-by-point summary of this page, see [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]].'''</big>
 
 
See also the page [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]
 
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

== Notice of Pending Revision ==

It's been over a week now since the reversion (on 9th December) of several edits I made. Despite my request, now explanation has been posted, in contrast to the explanations I gave for each of my changes. I therefore see it only fit to return the article to the state I left it in.

However, to avoid 'edit wars' I think it only fair to give notification of this, to allow a final chance for justification of the reversion.

The specific changes are:

*Removal of the item: ''''27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.'''' since it is a duplicate of ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass -- does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''''

*Removal of ''''26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.'''' After much discussion on this page, it seems generally agreed that there useful devices in existence. (I appreciate that some mention of GPS may be necessary, but a footnote, however valid, cannot justify the presence of the invalid section in the main article to which it is attached. GPS can have it's own separate entry on this page as a counterexample, if need be.)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:35, 31 December 2011 (EST)
*Removal of ''''30. The Ehrenfest Paradox ...'''', ''''31. The Twin Paradox ...'''' and ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle...'''' since these are paradoxes and (as discussed above) are not appropriate to a page of counterexamples. These entries have already been moved to and expanded upon in the main [[Relativity]] page.

--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:26, 17 December 2011 (EST)

::I've now implemented these changes since no objection has been forthcoming to my explaination above, posted in accordance with [[Conservapedia:Editing_etiquette#Etiquette_Rule:|editting etiquette]]. If there are any objections please discuss them here rather than engaging in revert wars. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:36, 30 December 2011 (EST)

:::Sorry, just noticing these comments now. Let's discuss before removing insights from entries.

:::Items 27 and 10 are similar, but not identical. 27 highlights a conflict between Relativity and basic principles of physics; item 10 emphasizes an internal contradiction in the theory that remains unanswered.

:::Item 26 remains unrebutted. Relativity has produced nothing of value.

:::Item 30 and 31 are logical problems which are valid counterexamples, given that Relativity claims to be based on logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Items 10, 27, and 31 should be taken out because they are just wrong, and make Conservapedia look lazy. Anyone who has learned about relativity from any college-level textbook less than about 40 or 50 years old knows how to do the calculations involving relativistic velocity, momentum, force, and acceleration. Our readers know this, and items 10 and 27 will just leave them scratching their heads about the diligence of Conservapedia. Item 31, the "twin paradox", is also very well known. The fact that something has the word "paradox" in its name doesn't mean that the subject is flawed. Otherwise, we would have to take the Russel paradox too seriously, and perhaps conclude that this: "The next sentence is false. The preceding sentence is true" means that the universe will blow up. The phrase "twin paradox" is simply a name. Everyone knows what is going on. Even Einstein. If it were actually a counterexample, this fact would be well known by now.[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 10:11, 31 December 2011 (EST)

*10: ''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass? '' It applies to the relativistic mass: that is observable in a [[cyclotron]]. So, it is one of those question you may speculate or philosophy all day long, but do the experiment (and the mass), and it is answered.
*27: ''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions. '' In light of the above, this seems to be wrong.
*30: ''The Ehrenfest Paradox'' interesting paradox, solvable and no counterexample
*31: ''The Twin Paradox'' no counterexample to relativity, it's solved in any physic's course on this subject
*26: ''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory'' please re-read the archives, they include plenty material on the GPS (though you seem to ignore it)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:36, 31 December 2011 (EST)

On the points 10 and 27 issue, whilst they may or may not be duplicates, may or may not be counterexamples, they're still just plain wrong, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of relativity. According to Special Relativity, the inertial mass of a body appears the same to all observers who are in the same inertial frame of reference (i.e. who are moving at the same velocity as each other, which may be different from that of the body being observed). If a force is applied to the body it will produce an acceleration of the same magnitude (though obviously in a different direction) regardless of the direction of the force. The force itself can in no sense be an 'observer' since it has no velocity. For observers in a different non-inertial frame, they will observe a different magnitude of acceleration, but it will still be the same regardless of the direction of the force. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:27, 31 December 2011 (EST)

I deleted #10 and #27. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:06, 1 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], you've reverted an edit that everyone involved in the discussion other than yourself seems to be agreed upon. Can you please at least attempt to justify your position? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:20, 1 January 2012 (EST)

:''deletion of educational information is disfavored on this site; deletions restored'' How can the perpetuation of false information be educational? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:37, 1 January 2012 (EST)

This entire page is ludicrous. If you don't believe in Einstein's relativity, then do you believe in Galilean relativity? If Einstein's relativity is correct up to small corrections, does it invalidate cultural relativism? Ironically, this page signifies to me that Conservapedia itself is an exercise in relative truth; the idea that individuals are entitled to make up whatever facts are consistent with their preconceptions. [[User:Aram|Aram]] 16:26, 1 January 2012 (EST)

== Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light. ==

As a source for the statement [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279 this discussion] on physicsforum.org is given. Here are all the contributions to this discussion:

{|
!A Dhingra
|The moment the magnetic field is generated, it should take some time to reach some distance. It cannot reach infinity instantly, it should have some speed, and that speed cannot be more than that of light. So let’s say that the newly generated magnetic field, through a current carrying wire, travels with the speed of light. Now for the application of the faraday’s law, let’s bring a magnet near a solenoid, through which initially no current flows, and make the magnet move with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case?

Take another case, when instead of a magnet we have a different circuit containing a solenoid through which current flows when the switch is made on, and this circuit is held stationary moving the other one with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case? What I think is that, as the system without current is moving as fast as the magnetic field … it never gets the chance to cut the magnetic field and cause induction to occur in the solenoid. So there should be no induction. But there is relative motion between the two systems and (also there is NO time varying magnetic field through the moving solenoid,)AND no induced current will be produced ...
so will the induction take place or not...??
if induction does not take place then the principle or relativity goes wrong......
|-
!DaleSpam
|You cannot make a magnet move with the speed of light. It is a physically impossible premise, so you shouldn't be surprised that assuming it leads to contradictions.
|-
!A Dhingra
|... can't it be just a thought experiment like many other paradoxes available....

with that assumption, think about the result.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|Obviously, if you violate the principle of relativity in your question then the answer must be that the principle of relativity is violated. It is just the most basic logic. Non-physical assumptions lead to non-physical conclusions. This says nothing whatsoever about physics, only about your question.
|-
!A Dhingra
|ok........
i agree that the situation is not realistic........
but still i didn't like the fact that one should not think beyond the laws made by humans himself.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|This is elementary logic. If you have any set of axioms (A) which logically imply some result (B) then if your premise is not(B) then you must logically conclude not(A). This is called transposition and is one of the fundamental rules of logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic)

SR logically implies that a solenoid must move slower than light (STL), therefore if you assume that a solenoid can move with the speed of light you must logically conclude that special relativity (SR) is violated. Written in the usual format for logic:
(SR → STL) ↔ (~STL → ~SR)

Whether or not the situation is realistic and whether or not SR is a "law made by humans himself" is actually only a secondary concern. This is primarily an exercise in basic logic. Note that I am agreeing with your OP. Under the stated premise (~STL) you must indeed logically conclude that "the principle of relativity goes wrong" (~SR).
|-
!vector22
|to make the experiment fair you would have to calculate what would happen to the solenoid at half light speed and then go from there.
|-
!netheril96
|If you want to think beyond relativity, invent your own laws of physics. If you want to explain in terms of relativity, then think within relativity.
|-
!A Dhingra
|can you help me go about finding this result......
(considering the magnetic field to be varying with time ...... as it is getting produced ...
|}

How does this discussion support the claim? This source seems to be unsuitable and therefore it should be deleted, and the statement marked again to be unsourced.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:00, 2 January 2012 (EST)

== Previous arguments ==

I'm creating a page [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]], the purpose of this is to ensure that arguments are not repeated by people who find the article, not realising that their objections have already been discussed, and removed as part of a cleanup of the talkpage. The page is NOT a place to make points, but a place to see if your objection has already been made, and save everybody time by reading the responses yourself, and then bringing up the objection only if you have a new point to make. Because the numbers for counterexamples change, the page will not include the number of the counterexample, only the text of it. Although I will try to put them in order. I know that to begin with, many old arguments will not be included, but hopefully it will eventually become a very useful resource for those wishing to make contributions to the page. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:29, 4 January 2012 (EST)

: While I appreciate the positive intent behind this idea, I do fear that it risks making Conservapedia look even sillier in this area than it already does. The problem is the implicit suggestion that this new page is in any way 'definitive'. Given that the issues surrounding Einsteinian Relativity have been discussed across the planet for over a century, and that the results of those discussions are available on-line, in textbooks and elsewhere, then it is unlikely that anyone will give a page on Conservapedia very much credence, particularly if it is seen to support this page, which puts forth views that very few with an understanding of the field share.

: The real problem is that the counterexamples page itself is not a genuine encyclopaedia entry, but the personal fiefdom of one contributor with little understanding of the subject matter and a bee in his bonnet about a spurious connection between Einsteinian Relativity and Moral Relativism. Unfortunately that contributor has administrator privileges, which he finds more effective in making his case than resorting to rational argument. Perhaps it would be better if the counterexamples page itself became an essay page, to make absoultely clear that it presents a personal point of view. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:06, 5 January 2012 (EST)

:: Anyone who finds Conservapedia silly because of this page will not think it is any sillier because of the new page. For many who see this page, it is a joke, and won't think any less of it because of the new page. The problem with turning this page into an essay is that those who support this page believe that it is not merely a page of personal opinion, but factually accurate. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer at the top of the page then? Something like 'this should not be seen as approving of the counterexamples, but as approval of productive discussion concerning the points'. Also, it should be noted that at the moment, every counterexample listed on the new page have outstanding objections to them, which have not been answered. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:05, 5 January 2012 (EST)

::::I hate to go raining on the parade again here, but science is argued by evidence--it is not enough to produce a counter example and highlight the "god of the gaps". There are paradoxical observations under any established paradigm in any field. This does not mean that the entire paradigm is incorrect, simply that there are gaps in the evidence that must be addressed in order to improve extant models. This is the primary reason that trained scientists find this page silly. There are tons of holes in relativity, just as there were massive holes in Darwin's original theory of natural selection (as a biologist, I am far more familiar with how the latter example has been, quite successfully, addressed), the notion that "there are some discrepancies with theory X, therefore goddidit" is an obvious logical fallacy. Rather than poking holes in an outdated model, it is far more scientific to argue in favor of an alternate model using evidence. The central caveat here, and one that must be carefully beaten out of every experiment, is that evidence cannot be approached with the intention of supporting a particular hypothesis--a model must be built around the evidence, not the other way around. That's why scientists laugh at the term "creation science", science is not about hunting for evidence in support of a pre-formed theory, it is about impartially collecting evidence and then letting said evidence speak for itself.

::::Having said that. I must acknowledge that this article is not explicitly (although, it is implied) about advancing one viewpoint over another--it is simply about highlighting perceived inconsistencies in the theory of relativity. By itself, that is not a ridiculous premise at all. However, because this page is more of an editorial than an academic encyclopedia article, this page itself probably should have been classified as an "essay" to begin with. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 14:13, 6 January 2012 (EST)

::::: In my opinion, the article is really a list of anomalies and paradoxes, not counterexamples. The anomalies are observations that need some additional explanation, and that may or may not require an adjustment to relativity. The paradoxes seem like contradictions or contrary to common sense, but have explanations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:58, 7 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If someone thinks that Relativity '''''must''''' be true as a matter of logic, then any and all evidence to the contrary is not going to change that view. "Paradox" might be an appropriate term for ostensible contradictions in logic. But the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 7 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: No, it is the term "true as a matter of logic" that is not suitable for observable science. Perhaps your real complaint is with those who push scientific statements as being true as a matter of logic. If so, I suggest renaming the article to "Counterexamples to Einsteinian thinking". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:09, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::: I think at least one major college teaches Relativity as a course in the math department rather than being listed primarily in the physics department.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science, what are they doing on this page? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 17:26, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::Strictly speaking, all sciences are "observational" sciences; the semantic distinction between observational science and experimental science is arbitrary at best. Even in a tightly-controlled experiment, the goal is still to ''observe'' the outcome of the experiment in order to make some inference about the processes involved. In other words, an experiment is intended as nothing more than an indirect observation of natural phenomena that are not readily directly observable.

::::::::A "paradox", by the most reductive definition, is when the available evidence suggests two contradictory hypotheses. Whereas an "anomaly" is an observation that does not conform to the hypothesis suggested by the previously available evidence. Both of these terms are quite appropriate to use in any scientific or logical context. When a scientist encounters a paradox or an anomaly, it implies that there is a fundamental gap in the theoretical understanding of his or her field. Seeking out evidence to address these gaps allows for scientists to adjust their theoretical models in order to more precisely explain the observed phenomena. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

RudrickBoucher, since we already established that you are not a biologist, shouldn't you say "as someone who likes to pretend to be a biologist". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::Conservative, I have a BS in cell and molecular biology (CMB) from the top undergraduate CMB program in the country, several years of laboratory experience doing developmental biology research, just as many publications (a couple of which, I first-authored), I also have teaching experience in introductory biology (AP biology and college-level intro bio), graduate level course-work in developmental biology, and, as of this coming fall, I will either be a first-year medical student or a developmental biology PhD candidate (I've been accepted into programs for both, but not a combined MD/PhD program just yet). In short, I am allowed to call myself a "biologist" because it is my profession--it may sound pretentious, but it saves on typing. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)
RudrichBoucher, a profession is something one does to earn money and have a net positive cash flow, while students often invest money in education and often have low earnings or debt accumulation. Perhaps you should consider taking an introductory course in finance so you better understand the concepts of cash flow and investment! :) I would also suggest taking a course in ethics at a Christian university so you no longer claim to be a biologist and then retract that claim like you did at this wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 8 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::I was paid for my research and for the teaching. Although, admittedly, not very well for either (as neither science nor teaching pays particularly well). I retracted the claim on the "15 questions" essay only after you had already edited it--in the name of diplomatically avoiding a pointless edit war. Similarly, I referenced my biological inclination above as a gesture of humility, to admit that my background in physics is relatively limited. On that note, what are your credentials? Have you spent seven years meticulously learning a specific field like I have? Have you published any papers? Are you a member of any professional research societies? Admittedly, I have at least another six years of education to go, but I can legitimately claim some level of expertise in my field. I don't say these things to brag, say them to lend credibility to my arguments. Finally, as I've mentioned before, I was raised Catholic and I spent my first two years of college at a Methodist school--where I did have the privilege of taking an ethics class (and I very much enjoyed it). So please, let's cut the ad hominem attacks and focus on the discussion at hand. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:44, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: Of those who credit Einstein for relativity, they often argue that Einstein's approach was superior because he ignored observations and presented relativity as being something that must be true as a matter of logic. The Einstein scholars acknowledge that Lorentz and Poincare had all the relativity formulas before Einstein, but Lorentz and Poincare were not true believers because they conceded that the theory could be disproved by experiment.
::::::: So the case could be made that there is an Einsteinian-relativity-philosophy that is a is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions, that is based on postulates taken on faith, and that ignores experimental evidence. If so, then maybe the page should be explicit about what is being attacked. All real science is based on experimental evidence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::RSchlafly, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that even Einstein considered relativity to be a mathematical approximation. One that precisely, but still somewhat inaccurately, explained the then-available evidence; in a manner similar to the proverbial physicist who, for ease of calculation, treats a horse as a circle. Anybody who has taken more than a year of calculus-based physics (or, even introductory college astronomy), knows the very real limitations of relativity. If anything, these limitations are just as dogmatic as relativity itself. Therefore, the notion that questioning relativity is taboo in intellectual circles (an underlying premise of this page) is patently ridiculous. Poking holes in relativity, and then seeking to explain them, has been one of the great ongoing projects in physics for the past seventy years. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::: I agree that questioning relativity is not taboo. The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics was for observations that caused a modification of general relativity. The biggest physics story of the year was the Italian claim that neutrinos go faster than light, contrary to relativity. Physicists often talk about replacing relativity with some unified field theory or quantum theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:51, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::::: That makes me wonder why there isn't a "Counterexamples to Quantum Mechanics" page here as well. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:11, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::::: There are a lot of anomalies and paradoxes in quantum mechanics also. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)

== A few more things ==

All right, more problems with this article:

<blockquote>
15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
 18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
 24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
</blockquote>
15: General relativity ''does not predict gravitons!'' Gravitons are massless spin-two particles predicted by QFT that lead to linear GR. (Though the spirit is different; in QFT, the h's--the metric perturbations--are a tensor representing field strength on a background Minkowski spacetime. In GR these represent curvature in spacetime.)
 18: Untrue--Consider the Dirac equation. It predicted spin, which was not predicted by Schrodinger theory. It also predicted negative energy states (antiparticles), and QFT has been fundamental to particle physics.
 24: Yet another horrible misunderstanding. Consider an ideal gas with N particles. Assume the total number of particles is conserved (it obviously doesn't have to be, but this is an idealized case). First of all, Newtonian gravity also predicts that a star will contract to a point without hydrostatic pressure--due to their mutual gravitational attraction. Should we start a "counterexamples to gravity" page? You've forgotten one thing: ''there's a term in the expression for the entropy that involves thermal energy!!!'' In other words (roughly speaking) the gas "warms up" so that the second law of thermodynamics is not violated. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:43, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::Very well said! While I'm in a commenting-frenzy, I'd like to add to your points.

::'''Re: #15.''' It's not a waste of time or money to reject a hypothesis. To quote Enrico Fermi, "If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery."

::'''Re: #18.''' Relativity HAS led to other [http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/relativity/discoveries-relativity-made-possible.htm|insights].

::'''Re: #24.''' The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. In the case of stellar black hole formation, gravitational pressure must exceed the sum of the thermal pressure, supplied by ongoing fusion in the stellar core, and the core degeneracy pressure, provided courtesy of the Pauli exclusion principle. Achieving this condition is, necessarily, a very violent event, complete with giant explosions, gamma ray bursts, and spewing jets of super-heated gas. When considering the entirety of the system giving rise to a black hole, and not just the resulting black hole itself, entropy certainly ''does'' increase. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::Hello! Thanks for the comments. And sorry about #24, like I said, the model I gave is slightly idealized b/c I haven't studied the subject in detail. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 07:58, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::No problem, I was in a bit of a commenting frenzy anyway. I'm guessing, because you referred to the ideal gas law, that you have some chemistry background?

:::::Also, I've had students throw the second law of thermodynamics at me when I'm trying to explain evolution. The Earth's surface isn't a closed system either because it's constantly receiving energy from the sun--so the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable there as well. The only truly closed system that I can think of is in Washington...and, yes, entropy there is ''always'' increasing! --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)

::::::Actually, I'm terrible at chemistry! My background is in physics and math. You talk about ideal gasses in any physics class where you discuss thermodynamics. But yeah, that's one of the classical misunderstandings among creationists. One thing I saw suggested that next time someone brings it up, ask them about the other laws of thermodynamics. What I also like about the second law of thermodynamics argument is that they don't seem to understand what entropy ''is'' and ''why'' it increases. So yeah, next time someone brings it up ask them about those things. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:18, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::Can I please delete these "counterexamples"? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:32, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::I say go for it. You've justified why they should be deleted and your justification has met with no objection. If somebody wishes to restore them, they are welcome to object here.

::::::::As an aside, there does seem to be a disproportionate number of math and physics types on here. It is interesting how the life sciences tend to be predominantly liberal, whereas there's a more even distribution of political ideology in the physical sciences. There are conservative biologists (my old PI, for example), but they are very few and very far between. Knowledge of evolution does not seem to be a factor here, because understanding / acceptance of evolution is nearly universal in all of the sciences. In biology, there is a (seemingly true, in my experience) stereotypical "personality" in each of the sub-disciplines; to reference other fields, the age-old dichotomy between chemists and chemical engineers seems to mostly hold true. I have always wondered if the "personality" of the fields would lead to the observed political differences, or if maybe there is something deeper.

::::::::Because I am afraid that my above observation may be taken grossly out of context, I must add to it the disclaimer that I am not in any way suggesting "indoctrination" of students in one field versus another (or making some other similarly fatuous insinuation). I am simply making an observation, and speculating on its possible cause. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:25, 12 January 2012 (EST)

These counterexamples are not adequately rebutted above:

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

:If Relativists are not even going to accept the results of experiments that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then they '''''are''''' a waste of money.

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

:If you can give examples in your own words, then please do.

24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

:This statement is true also. The dramatic decrease in entropy predicted by Relativity is contrary to the Second Law. No known mechanism offsets that decrease.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::'''re: 15.''' The existence of gravitons was hypothesized in an attempt to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics. General relativity, by itself, does not predict the existence of gravitons. Furthermore, money spent testing a hypothesis that is ultimately not supported is not "wasted" (otherwise, I'd be out of a job)--the knowledge gained in testing the hypothesis allows a better hypothesis to be formulated.

:::'''re: 18.''' General relativity correctly predicted gravitational lensing, the existence of black holes, and the accelerating expansion of the universe. Additionally (and this is the first example that I can come up with off of the top of my head, RSchlafly probably knows a few better ones), relativistic effects must be compensated for to maximize the accuracy of satellite-based GPS systems.

:::'''re: 24.''' Black hole formation results in a net increase in entropy when considering the system as a whole. If you were to consider just the mass of the resultant black hole as a closed system, the degeneracy forces outweigh the net gravitational force significantly enough to prevent collapse into a schwarzschild radius. In just overcoming this by itself (as theoretically happens in super-massive black holes), there would be a massive output of emitted particles (radiation), which would still result in a net increase in the entropy of the system.

:::These counterexamples are not valid. Plain and simple. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 01:10, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::: General relativity did not predict the accelerating expansion of the universe. It predicted that the expansion would be slowing. Most physicists say that the GR equations must be modified to accommodate the accelerating expansion.
:::: I don't get the entropy argument. I always assumed that a black hole would have all the entropy of the collapsing star and matter falling in. Is there a source for saying that black holes have low entropy? As the footnote says, Hawking has an explanation. Is there something wrong with that explanation? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:29, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::::Um...I ''did'' address all your concerns, Andy....

<blockquote>
These counterexamples are not adequately rebutted above:

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

:If Relativists are not even going to accept the results of experiments that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then they '''''are''''' a waste of money. '''Wait, gravitons are predicted by GR?! Please send me a link to the derivation!!!'''

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

:If you can give examples in your own words, then please do. '''I did!!!! Not to be rude, but did you see what I wrote above? Dirac equation! Spin! Antiparticles! Quantum Field theory! Particle physics! The Standard Model!'''

24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

:This statement is true also. The dramatic decrease in entropy predicted by Relativity is contrary to the Second Law. No known mechanism offsets that decrease '''Yes, yes, yes, temperature increase is unknown to physics!'''
</blockquote>

:::::(Again I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just wondering if there was a glitch or something b/c, as I said, these were all addressed above.) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:48, 13 January 2012 (EST)

The footnote for #8 says that the calculations are "complicated or contrived", and that the fundamental formula was "conformed" to match the observed perihelion precession. No one doubts that the derivation is complicated. But "conformed" seems to say that something was "tweaked" to match the precession. The formula is complicated to solve but simple to write: <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>. There's nothing in it that can be "tweaked"--not 8, not pi, and not K (Newton's constant of gravitation.)[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:08, 21 January 2012 (EST)
:Yep, this is also confusing to me. Does Andy Schlafly know relativity? As you said, nothing can be tweaked in that equation (to "conform" to whatever events). The tensor that represents curvature has to have divergence 0, so that energy-momentum is locally conserved, and the 8*pi*G is determined from the fact that it has to reduce to Newtonian gravity in the weak-field limit. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:47, 23 January 2012 (EST)

== Recent reversion ==

[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], while your recent change did keep the link to the rebuttal page, don't you think it would only be fair to also keep the note that the page is controversial? Regardless who is actually right or wrong, I don't think it would be fair to anyone reading 'The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia' for them to pick up the impression that the ideas on this page are not very widely disputed. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 16:05, 29 January 2012 (EST)

: The whole article is a list of relativity controversies. It says at the top that it is contrary to what liberals promote. Isn't that clear? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:04, 29 January 2012 (EST)
:: The point is, I think, that the very idea that there is a liberal/conservative division on this is itself controversial. Personally, I have not seen the issue raised anywhere except on Conservapedia, and even then only by a very small subset of contributors.
:: On a broader point, if opposing liberal points of view is, by definition, controversial, and given that such opposition is the ''raison d'être'' of Conservapedia, wouldn't a better tagline be "The Controversial Encyclopaedia"?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)

: It's a common tactic for the media to label someone they don't like as "controversial". But does anyone ever hear a liberal theory or politician called "controversial"? Was [[Ted Kennedy]] ever called "controversial" by the media?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 29 January 2012 (EST)

::Does this make [[string theory]] conservative, as it is often labeled ''controversial''? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:::No, I didn't suggest that ''everything'' the media disparages as "controversial" is conservative. String theory is a challenge to liberal orthodoxy from the Left.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:18, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::Just to nail this down [[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], do you or do you not think that this page is controversial?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::Also, your question about Ted Kennedy looks rhetorical with the implied answer of 'no', and yet the answer is very clearly 'yes'. Googling "Ted Kennedy" and "controversial" gives 6.4 million hits. Obviously that doesn't mean the term is being applied to him in all cases, but in many of them (e.g. http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/us/2009/08/26/ted-kennedy-controversy#slide=1) it clearly is. Can you clarify the point you were making about him?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:27, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::: The term "controversial" is not a good term for [[string theory]]. The major aspects are not disputed. A subject is not conservative just because some journalist mislabels it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:14, 31 January 2012 (EST)

::::::That's the problem with science journalism these days. It overstates the implications of a lot of findings, oversimplifies key concepts, and often fails to accurately convey consensus opinions in a particular field. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 17:35, 31 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Just wanted to add to this: I have never seen GR disputed anywhere but here. (Save for quantum gravity, of course). [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:28, 2 February 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos do not travel faster than light ==
The same lab that originally broke the story has confirmed a flaw in their experiment. Dr. Sandro Centro stated, ''"In fact I was a little sceptical since the beginning, now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos.[...]I think they were a little bit in a hurry to publish something that was astonishing, and at the end of the day it was a wrong measurement."[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682]

: I hope he did not mean to say that, because neutrinos going at the speed of light would still contradict relativity (or other experiments). Neutrinos have mass, and must go slower than the speed of light. The article has a better statement: "they find that the neutrinos do travel at the same speed as light, within a small error range." [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:02, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

I took the part out - again: have a look at the [http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html updated press-release] by CERN regarding the experiment:
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:48, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

:The updates and corrections for the benefit of Relativists are less than persuasive. Is anyone claiming quote above ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is inaccurate? Note, by the way, that the CERN experiment is not the only one that suggested neutrinos can travel at least as fast as the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:57, 17 March 2012 (EDT)
::Andy, perhaps you could write to either the ICARUS Collaboration or CERN seeking clarification of their results. After reading the actual paper[http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.3433.pdf](not the press release), it seems that the team is quite confident that their latest results are in complete agreement with Relativity. "''Based on seven neutrino events, our result is in excellent agreement with Lorentz dependent velocities of neutrinos and of light. Neutrinos and GPS measurements are found to be sharply coincident in time within an uncertainty of a few nanoseconds, in disagreement with the superluminal result reported by the OPERA Collaboration.''" Yet you contend that the results from the very same experiment actually ''disproves'' Relativity. In this instance I simply think you are wrong. But who's to say that my interpretation of an article is any more accurate than yours? Obviously, we both can't be right. I think there must be a better way to settle this matter than combing through press releases. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 13:33, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The new, updated claims seem more like [[political correctness]] than real science. Does the paper compare the updated results to the independent prior findings, by another experiment, that also suggested that neutrino speeds conflict with the politicized desires of Relativists?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:55, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Political correctness? Come off it Schlafly. You do realize that there's far more fame and glory to be had for a physicist to prove GR wrong than there is to add to the growing list of supporting evidence? You do understand that, right? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 01:57, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::The opposite is obviously true. Those who even question the [[Theory of Relativity]] are risking their careers. No grad student can expect to receive a doctorate if he questions relativity; no associate professor can expect to receive tenure if he does likewise; and no tenured professor will ever win the [[Nobel Prize]] for questioning relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:31, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::: Yep, and no one will ever win a Nobel prize for questioning whether the Earth is round either. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 18:29, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::: There aren't 39 counterexamples to the spherical shape of the Earth. But if a doctoral candidate, tenure-track professor, or [[Nobel Prize]] wannabe repeats one of the 39 [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], then he's risking retaliation against his career by liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:52, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::: There aren't 39 counterexamples to relativity and [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity|this page]] documents in detail what's wrong with each alleged "counterexample". The acceptance of relativity has to do with the theory passing extensive experimental scrutiny and nothing to do with "liberals". --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 19:29, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly said: "''No grad student can expect to receive a doctorate if he questions relativity[...]''" Yes. If a doctoral candidate whipped out almost any of your "counterexamples", in anything short of a joking fashion, they most likely would be signaling the end of their academic carrier. Why? It's simple. Advanced degrees are awarded to students who have shown a mastery of their particular field of study. Presenting this list of counterexamples in a doctoral thesis would only go towards illustrating that the student does not have a thorough understanding of SR or GR and thus should not offered a degree. No political correctness. No liberal conspiracy.
 Aschlafly went on to say: "''...no tenured professor will ever win the [[Nobel Prize]] for questioning relativity.''" You are 100% correct on this one. Why? Because anybody can sit around questioning anything. It doesn't take any particular knowledge, skill, education, or keen intellect to lob endless unanswerable questions. Otherwise Glenn Beck would have won the Nobel (and every other prize) by now. No, the proverbial (and many times literal) money is in ''answering'' questions. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 14:09, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I'm in the process of getting a debate under way on 'GPS and Relativity' over at [[Talk:Theory of relativity]]. A this stage I would rather just have some references, especially any which show that Relativity is not used in the GPS system. Once we have some good references to look at, possibly in a week or two, we can then consider the evidence. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 08:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

== Biblical Examples ==

You can't really use the Bible to prove that the Bible is correct. While I'm not disputing the Bible, that doesn't change the fact that it's a tautological argument. I could easily "prove" relativity by saying "Einstein said such-and-such" and conclude therefore that such-and-such is true. But in reality, that wouldn't prove anything because I'd essentially be saying "Einstein said this, therefore what Einstein said is correct". It's no different for the Bible. Even if we were to argue that the Bible represents absolute truth, keep in mind that our source for that is the Bible itself, so regardless of what you believe, it's still a tautological argument. I'm not going to remove the Biblical examples without discussion, but I don't think they belong here. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:31, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

== The roundness of the sun ==

I'm not completely familiar with the general and special theories of relativity, but what do they have to say about the roundness of the sun? [[User:DennyR|DennyR]] 12:41, 18 August 2012 (EDT)
:There is a relationship, though it's somewhat roundabout. See item #4 in the rebuttal page. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:54, 18 August 2012 (EDT)

== Gravitational waves found ==

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19408363 BBC article]

== Lede quote ==

I would argue if anything needs to be changed it's the detail in point 4. The lede quote is recent and relevant, and more sources for it are available than just LiveScience. In looking into it more just now, I've found it's progressed. Apparently the evidence against relativity was so concerning to the scientific community they began immediately trying to explain it away and forced the person in charge to resign.[http://news.discovery.com/space/opera-leaders-resign-after-no-confidence-vote-120404.html][http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html] Evidence that the original results are wrong was just finished.[http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/once-again-physicists-debunk.html] This displays the level of bias in the scientific community though, in trying to do all they can to protect the doctrine of relativity, and make it appear more substantiated and certain than it is. Maybe the quote should be removed, but it should be mentioned in point 4 regardless. That such major evidence was found in recent months against relativity and the scientific community sought so hard to cover it up, is news indeed. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 05:47, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

:No one mentioned in those articles believes that neutrinos travel faster than light. I don't see how the OPERA leaders' resignations provide any evidence. Sounds more like their team was ticked off at them for making them all look like fools. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 13:12, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
::The fact that it occurred like that shows relativity today is still under investigation, and not necessarily a proven fact - right? The scientific community is still trying to persuade everyone there is evidence for it. The effort to prove relativity correct is ongoing, rather than established like it was portrayed. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 21:23, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

==Removing material==
Unless you are the site owner, please do not remove, dilute, or water down, or adulterate the items here. This page is extremely famous, and represents the views of the site owner. It has been quoted and cited in print and internet articles all over the world. It has over 1.8 million page views, more than 10 times as many as either the [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] and the [[Counterexamples to Evolution]] articles. If you think something is wrong, the [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]] article is the place to bring it up.

:I suppose "2+2=4" represents my views also, but the truth does not care whether I or anyone else agrees.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 6 September 2012 (EDT)

::Touché! Your point is well taken. Though I doubt that taking such a daring and controversial stand would get 1.8 million page views. :-) [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 22:36, 17 September 2012 (EDT)

Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-09-07T02:46:45Z

JudyJ: Add some more, keep it up to date with the other page.

This is intended as an article rebutting the points in the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article. That article's talk page has proven to be less than satisfactory for this purpose, because it gets archived, and much of its material has degenerated into personal disputes. We believe that the two sides of the issue are better handled in two articles—this one and [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], rather than a talk page.

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

#''Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found. Sound like global warming?''
#:True, the ''direct'' searches for gravitational waves have not yet yielded any clear results, though indirect observations have been made (the Hulse/Taylor observations.) Before people dismiss indirect observations, recall that no one has ever seen an electron.
#:The Earth-based LIGO detectors have, so far, not detected any unambiguous gravitational wave signatures from such events as a black-hole merger. It is barely sensitive enough to find such things in the Milky Way or very nearby galaxies. It is being upgraded in a plan that should complete in 2014. It is hoped that, after the upgrade, it will be able to see these events clearly and unambiguously.
#:The space-based LISA detectors have not been built yet, and the original proposal has been scrapped because of budgetary problems. A new version, called "eLISA" has been proposed, and should be sensitive to events as far away as redshift 15.
#:Whether these experiments are a good use of money is another question, one that has no bearing on whether relativity is correct.
#::The objection has been raised that the experiments should not have been funded if scientists were going to ignore negative results.
#:::The results are only partly negative. The scientists knew all along that a certain amount of luck would be involved in finding a sufficiently strong signal within the time frame of the experiment. The failure so far does not mean that black-hole mergers do not emit gravitational waves; just that they haven't been lucky enough to find them. They will continue to search.
#:'''Update:''' Another, much more commonplace observation of gravitational wave emission has neen reported<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19408363 BBC article</ref>. The article suggests that, since it shows detectable gravitational waves are more common than previously thought, there is optimism that the eLISA detector, when completed, might find one source per week.
#:This has nothing to do with global warming.
#''The orbital radius of the Moon's orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts''.
#:This could be a counterexample to both GR and Newtonian gravity--in both, the radius is defined in terms of conserved quantities.
#::The objection has been raised that this would still be a counterexample to Relativity.
#:::Yes, if it were actually true that the Moon's orbit is undergoing some kind of anomalous perturbation, it would indeed be a disproof of Relativity, Newtonian mechanics, and, in fact, all of physics since Galileo.
#::::Actually, the average radius of the Moon's orbit is in fact increasing. By 38mm a year. This was first predicted in the late 19th century and actually measured since at least the early 1970's and more accurately thereafter thanks to the mirrors left for that purpose by the Apollo astronauts. The reason for this is well-known and simple enough to be explained on science-oriented TV shows from time to time. To put it simply: the Moon pulls on the Earth causing the tides and slowing down its rotation slightly, lengthening it's day by 2 milliseconds every 100 years. Reciprocally, the Earth pulls on the Moon and accelerates it slightly thus increasing the height of its orbit and energy is conserved. For a more complete explanation see <ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124</ref>. This behavoiur, predicted over 100 years ago, observed and measured, is in no way "anomalous" and relativity, general, special or otherwise doesn't really concern itself with tidal mechanics so on that point at least physics, Galillean, Newtonian and Einsteinian, are quite safe for now.
#''The Pioneer anomaly.''
#:The "Pioneer anomaly" is the deviation in the motion of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft from their predicted motion, at the distance of Saturn and beyond. It should be noted that the anomaly is about 1000 times greater than the difference between the classical Newtonian prediction and the prediction of relativity, so this is not a problem with relativity ''per se''; it is more general than that.
#:Calculating the force caused by heat (that is, miniscule amounts of infrared radiation) from the radioactive power source was one of the first effects that was examined. The anomaly arose when this and other known effects could not fully explain the deviation.
#:The problem is believed to have been solved by taking into account the reflection of the radiation from the power source off of the back of the antenna dish<ref>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/</ref>. The solution is sometimes described as an application of "Phong shading", a technique of computer graphics that is now considered imprecise. But Phong shading itself is not what is important. The "ray tracing" computer graphics technique that underlies Phong shading was what inspired the scientists to take reflection into account.
#''the solar flattening is ... too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation.''
#:This observation is interesting, but the predictions of oblateness come from analysis of fluid mechanics; relativity is not involved, and the cited paper makes no mention of relativity.
#:
#:We expect a very large rotating body to show oblateness according to well-known principles involving centrifugal force. This is particularly easy to observe with Jupiter, though the other planets, including Earth, show it too. Scientists do not know why the Sun exhibits nearly zero oblateness, but relativity is not believed to be the cause.
#:
#:Now it happens that there ''is'' a connection between solar oblateness and the calculation of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and that involves General Relativity. When checking the observed precession against the effect predicted by Relativity, one needs to subtract the effect of solar oblateness, along with the other effects, such as equinoctial precession and the gravitational effects of other planets. The effect of solar oblateness is a mere .0254 arcseconds per century, insignificant in comparison with precession (about 5500) and other planets' gravity (about 550). The figure of .0254 was calculated based on what fluid dynamics predicted, and was subtracted in the figures quoted below in item #9. When that tiny effect is removed, the error bars still overlap that for the GR prediction.
#''Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity. The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement''.
#:This is an interesting observation. The world's best scientific minds are looking into it. That relativity is incorrect is not being taken seriously as a possible explanation.
#:'''Update:''' The problem seems to have been caused by a faulty cable connection between a computer and a GPS unit. When the connection was repaired, the travel time increased by 60 nanoseconds, which had been the amount of the anomaly <ref>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/22/technology-faster-than-light-neutrinos.html</ref> <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/22/loose-wire-led-to-stunning-faster-than-light-particle-finding/?intcmp=features</ref>. The claims of faster-than-light neutrinos have now been refuted very thoroughly<ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html</ref><ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/once-again-physicists-debunk.html</ref>.
#:The objection has been raised that a recent news report from the BBC ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is also contradictory, since neutrinos have mass and are therefore forbidden by relativity to travel at exactly the speed of light. Since the neutrino energies were 17GeV, and the current estimate for the neutrino mass is about 0.25eV, the deviation from the speed of light would be about 1 part in 1022. This means that the neutrinos would arrive at the detector about .26x10-24 seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is one quarter of a billionth of a femtosecond, or about .26x10-15 of a nanosecond. The accuracy of the GPS units and cesium clocks used in the measurement is greater than a nanosecond, so the discrepancy cannot possibly be detected. It is unfortunate that the claim "the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos" was taken so literally.
#''Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").''
#:This may be another case of the Pioneer anomaly, or it may be something else. However, it is very unlikely that it shows that relativity is wrong and Newtonian mechanics is correct.
#''Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "dark matter" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it due to the acceleration of various parts of galaxies that accelerated funny that led to dark matter (based on simple Newtonian dynamics)?
#''The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "dark energy" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:This is the dark energy/cosmological constant argument. The cosmological constant was added by Einstein after he discovered that his field equations (<math>\mathbf{G}=8\pi \mathbf{T}</math>) predicted that the universe was expanding, contradicting his firm philosophical belief in a static universe. So he inserted <math>\Lambda \mathbf{g}</math> to the LHS so that it would predict a static universe. A few years later, Hubble showed the universe to be expanding, and Einstein called the cosmological constant the worst mistake of his career. So, it sort of had a bad reputation, and people didn't want to seriously consider it, until recent observations have shown the universe's expansion to be accelerating forced them to do so. It could have had a very different history. Einstein could have had that term in the EFE's from the start, and pointed out that it would determine if the universe's expansion was accelerating (or not expanding at all!) and it would take further observation to determine its value.
#''Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.''
#:A footnote goes on to say that "In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01) ..."
#:Considering only the ''anomalous'' precession, that is, the precession that remains after all known other factors (other planets and asteroids, solar oblateness) have been accounted for, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values are:
#::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
#::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
#::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
#::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
#::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijpers 2008]]
#:These error bars, and that of the relativity formula, all overlap.
#:The formula for mechanics under general relativity is complicated, but it is not contrived or conformed. "Conformed" suggests that it was somehow adjusted or "tweaked" to match the 42.98 figure. The formula is
#:::<math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>
#:To begin to explain the formula, Newton's law of gravity, combining F = ma and <math>F = \frac{KMm}{r^2}\,</math>, is
#::<math>a = \frac{KM}{r^2}\,</math>
#:In Einstein's equation, <math>T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "stress-energy tensor", and <math>8 \pi T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> gives the density of the Sun, taking the place of <math>\frac{M}{r^2}\,</math>. <math>G_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "Einstein curvature tensor", and says how spacetime curves to create an apparent gravitational acceleration.
#:There is nothing to tweak to get a value of 42.98 arcseconds. 8 is 8. <math>\pi\,</math> is <math>\pi\,</math>. K is Newton's constant of gravitation in both formulas.
#:
#::::The above discussion notwithstanding, more sophisticated technology has measured a precession of 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01, which disproves the prediction of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Notice how publication of data stopped two decades ago when the observations diverged from the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
#:Measurements of planetary motion are now calculated relative to the "International Celestial Reference Frame" (ICFR), replacing the older, and much less accurate "equinoctial" frame. The older measurements got a value of about 5600 arcseconds/century for the precession of Mercury, nearly all of which (5025 arcseconds) was because of the rotation of the "equinoctial" frame. The ICFR frame removes that source of uncertainty, and, with the very accurate radar measurements conducted by NASA between 1987 and 1997<ref>[http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf]</ref>, gets a value of 574.10±0.65 arcseconds observed, in good agreement with the predicted 574.64±0.69 value.
#:
#:The ICFR is described in [http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Publications/TechnicalNotes/tn32.html this] document, dated 2003.
#''The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.''
#:The formulas for velocity, momentum, and mass can in fact be written in such a way that they appear to have discontinuities, just as the tangent function has discontinuities while the underlying sine and cosine functions do not. But they can also be written in a form that does not show discontinuities.
#:All particles, with or without mass, can have any value of momentum. The formula for the velocity of a particle, in terms of its mass and momentum, is
#:::<math>v = \frac{pc}{\sqrt{m^2c^2+p^2}}</math>
#:For a particle with mass, this means that momentum of zero gives a speed of zero, and, as the momentum approaches infinity, the speed approaches c.
#:For a massless particle, the speed is always c.
#''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''
#:The simple answer is, unequivocally, that it acts on the 'relativistic' mass. The question seems to relate to a simple misunderstanding of Special Relativity. Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance in the body's mass with regard to the direction of the force. Thus to a given observer, a force in any direction will operate on the same mass. However, to a different observer, this mass may be different, although still the constant with regard to the direction of the force.
#''The observed lack of curvature in overall space.''
#:What? Is has been observed
#''The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.''
#:We're still working on a quantum theory of gravity; this isn't so much a counter-example as saying that (classical)GR isn't valid in that domain.
#''The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.''
#:Special Relativity only forbids the transmission of matter, energy or information at a speed faster than light. There are plenty of other things that can move faster than light. Consider a laser on Earth which is rotating on a pivot, whose light shines onto the hull of a satellite 200,000Km away (2e8 metres). If the laser rotates at a sedentary one revolution ever four seconds, the speed of the laser beam's tip crossing the satellite's hull is 3.14e8 metres per second - faster than the speed of light. However, this is not a transfer of information. Any information is travelling from Earth to the satellite, obeying the universal speed limit. Similarly, the only information that can be transmitted by the quantum entanglement of two particles is from the originator of the particles to the two observers, not from one observer to another. Faster than light transmission of information using quantum entanglement has never been observed, nor has even conceived how such a mechanism might work.<ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612</ref>
#''The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.''
#:As an argument against relativity, there are two reasons that this is invalid (beyond simply questioning the evidential validity of the Bible):
#::a) These passages clearly refer to a [[miracle]]. A miracle, being an act of God, is not subject to the laws of physics.
#::b) It is highly debatable as to whether the verses do describe [[action-at-a-distance]] in the sense of an action whose influence travels instantaneously (and therefore faster than the speed of light). This itself may be argued from two viewpoints:
#:::i) When reading these passages, as with consideration of many apparent relativistic anomalies, the true picture of causality must be considered. In each case there are two apparent events. Event A - Jesus does something (says 'thy son liveth', says 'be it unto thee even as thou wilt', or Christ's spirit leaving His body). Event B - the apparent result (the son lives, her daughter is made whole, or the earth quakes). However, it is not the case in any of these examples that A causes B. Both A and B are caused by a third event. In the first two cases it is Christ's thought that causes the miracle and that causes His lips to announce the miracle. This thought would have occurred fractions of a second before either event, and is the non-instantaneous cause of both. In the last case it is Christ's death that is the precursor and cause of both events.
#:::ii) It must be considered that at the time when the Gospels were written, neither their authors nor their intended readers were aware of any concept of the speed of light and were unable to measure the billionths of a second difference between the events being considered here. Thus just as in modern parlance the phrase 'at the same moment' has a tolerance of milliseconds (unless specifically couched to mean otherwise) so do the various terms used by the Evangelists. They would never have considered it an important issue, and would therefore not have worried about the degree of precision.
#::::Miracles do not violate logic, and the [[Theory of Relativity]] asserts that these [[action-at-a-distance]] miracles described in the [[Gospels]] are impossible. No plausible medium for these miracles, even if they were non-instantaneous action-at-a-distance, has been proposed.
#''The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.''
#:Gravitons are a prediction of [[Quantum Theory]], not of relativity, although the concept is an extension of the relativistic idea that forces take a finite time to be transmitted over a distance.
#:No one expects to observe gravitons. Calculations show that it is well-nigh impossible with any conceivable detector that we could build. No one is designing, funding, or building any apparatus to search for gravitons.
#:Now it happens that theoretical physicists discuss and speculate on the existence and nature of such things as gravitons as part of their theoretical work. Some of these discussions take place among scientists who receive their salaries from various government agencies that are funded by taxpayers. Whether all of the things that scientists think about, talk about, and write about constitute a good use of money is not for us to say.
#''Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do not experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity''
#:Whilst this observation is unconfirmed, if true it would still not invalidate relativity. Many things may vary with position in space, and relativity does not deny this. There is no suggestion that the fine-structure constant is different at the same point in space for observers in different non-inertial frame, as the 'counterexample' implies.
#''The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a black hole. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."''
#:When physicists encounter something puzzling, their first reaction is usually not to assume that it shows that relativity is wrong. In fact the cited article never mentions relativity at all. It is about "magnetars", a type of neutron star about which very little is known, other than their extremely strong magnetic fields.
#:Many scientific discoveries have arisen from observations that were puzzling at first. Edwin Hubble's observations of galactic redshift led to the realization that the universe is expanding isotropically. The observations by Jocelyn Bell and Antony Hewish, of periodic pulsation in the radio emissions of a star, were so puzzling at first that they seemed to suggest transmissions from intelligent extraterrestrials. They had actually discovered pulsars. When Carl Anderson saw unexplained particle tracks in a cloud chamber, he had discovered antiparticles.
#:None of these people assumed that the explanation for these observations was that relativity was wrong. They were all astrophysicists and were quite familiar with relativity. In fact, Anderson's antiparticles had been predicted by the Dirac equation, a synthesis of special relativity and the Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics, from a few years earlier.
#''The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.''
#:It is utterly baffling how anyone could make such an assertion. The insights from relativity are multitudinous. Relativity forms the basis for astronomy, cosmology, electrodynamics, and many other fields. The interconnection between the electric and magnetic forces is now seen to be a straightforward consequence of relativity. Relativity combined with quantum mechanics are the basis of all of contemporary physics.
#:The Dirac equation, which gives rise to antiparticles and the theory of spinors, was an early example of introducing relatitivity into the Schrödinger equation.
#:More generally, special relativity was combined with quantum theory to produce [[quantum field theory]] (QFT). An example of a QFT is [[quantum electrodynamics]], the most precise theory in physics. Furthermore, string theory is Lorentz invariant and produces general relativity in the low energy limit.
#''The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.''
#:We are baffled that anyone would connect this problem with relativity. The non-relativity principle of conservation of mass has been known, in general, for hundreds of years, going back to the time of the alchemists, and has been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. The principle of conservation of energy has also been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. Relativity simply generalizes this to a principle of both together, with even greater precision. So, in principle, it is recognized that the mass of the standard kilogram could change if an energy transfer took place. But no combustion, corrosion, or nuclear decay is suspected of having taken place. In any case, the amount of energy that would have to have been released is 1.25 megawatt-hours, which would certainly have been noticed.
#:Relativity does not promise uniformity of the universe any more strongly than classical physics did. The apparent change in mass of the standard kilogram is simply a mystery.
#''The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 23, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about speculation that the constant "alpha" (see item 17 above) may not be constant. It might have decreased, by 45 parts per billion, as recently (in cosmic time) as two billion years ago, based on data from the Oklo "natural fission reactor". Other measurements have been made of alpha at earlier times, such as measurement of light from distant quasars. These measurements suggest that alpha has increased by a few parts per 105 in 12 billion years.
#:There is plenty of literature on theories about change in alpha, and some of it indicates that this may be due to change in the speed of light. Specifically, the Oklo data may suggest that the speed of light may have been increasing slightly. (This is the opposite of the direction of change claimed by fundamentalists, but is much smaller in any case.)
#:Speculation on a different speed of light in the past may relate to theories of "cosmic inflation", which touches on the question of why the Cosmic Background Radiation is so nearly isotropic, which indicates a near-uniformity of temperature, which requires inflation or some equivalent mechanism.
#:None of the scientists working in this area seem to doubt the fundamental correctness of relativity.
#''"According to Einstein's view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 23, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about a very recent and exciting development in fundamental theoretical physics, generally called the "holographic principle". This proposes that our perceived 3-dimensional space actually arises from a "hologram" on a 2-dimensional space. Much has been written about this recently, including the best-selling book ''The Hidden Reality'' by Brian Greene. This hologram manifests itself in the "foamlike" ripples of spacetime, at the scale of the Planck length, which is so small that there seemed to be no way to detect it directly.
#:But it seems that some "inexplicable static" in the results of another unrelated experiment, searching for gravitational waves, may be the first hints of the holographic nature of space. If so, this is a lucky and serendipitous result.
#:Serendipitous scientific discoveries have been made many times, as when Henri Becquerel put a photographic plate in a dark drawer because the weather was cloudy, and thereby discovered radioactivity.
#:That the "foamlike" nature of space at short distances is contrary to the continuous nature presumed by classical mechanics and relativity has been known for some time. This is the problem that quantum gravity seeks to solve.
#''"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don't gel."''
#:Quoting things without explaining the context is often a bad idea, and the indicated item is a good example of this. It gives no hint of what the article from which the quote was taken is about. The article is about one scientist's contribution to the problem of unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. The scientist, Petr HoYava of Berkeley, has come up with an approach that he says eliminates the infinities that have plagued other unification attempts.
#:The two quoted sentences are HoYava's ''statement of the problem''. So it comes as no surprise that he says that there is a conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics. The very next paragraph begins:
#::The solution, HoYava says, is to snip threads that bind time to space at very high energies .... At low energies, general relativity emerges from this underlying framework ..."
#:It is well known that, just as classical mechanics emerges from quantum mechanics at non-microscopic scales, and classical mechanics emerges from relativity at low speeds, both relativity and quantum mechanics should emerge from the Grand Unified Theory (whatever that turns out to be) at the appropriate scales.
#''The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.''
#:The topology of wormholes is an interesting topic, widely discussed among theoretical physicists and mathematicians. There is much speculation about what they would be like (if they could exist at all under quantum gravity), and what kind of "cosmic censorship" or "chronology protection" theorems might make practical time travel impossible. The nature of these theorems seems to be intertwined with theories of quantum gravity and "grand unification", so the exact form of the "cosmic censorship", if it exists, can't be known until quantum mechanics and relativistic geometry are unified. It is an exciting field of research. No one believes that the "cosmic censorship" will take the form of relativity not being a true non-quantum approximation to reality.
#''The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.''
#:Since the 70's much work has been done on the subject of black hole thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973CMaPh..31..161B</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9307035v1.pdf</ref>, most notably by the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge [[Stephen Hawking]]. When quantum field theory is added to the analysis of black holes it is found that they do not possess "low entropy" (quite the opposite, in fact) and are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...7.2333B</ref>. The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article has labelled this work in a footnote as "[c]ontrived explanations", with no explanation for this characterization given.
#''Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.''
#:Please read the cited paper carefully. It is a survey of their observations over a 30 year period. They point out that their data matches general relativity to within 0.2 percent, and is now down in the "noise" of other effects, such as lack of accurate knowledge of just how far away the pulsars are, and lack of accurate knowledge of galactic constants. As they say in the abstract, "tighter bounds will be difficult to obtain." The paper, written in 2004, also notes that, because the pulsar beams are slowly tilting out of the line of sight to Earth, "A core component [of the emission] is quite prominent in the data taken in 1980-81, but it faded very significantly between 1980 and 1998 and was nearly gone by 2003."
#:That is why they are not releasing further data. 30 years is a fairly long time to watch a pair of pulsars. They're not doing the experiment any more—it did its job, and it's finished. No one drops cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa any more either.
#:The data are not diverging from the predictions.
#''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.''
#:The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses general relativity to achieve greater accuracy<ref>http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html</ref>.
#:In fact, relativity is what makes the magnetic force necessary. The magnetic force is used in, among other things, electric motors and generators.
#:Even if it were the case that no practical applications have come from relativity, that is irrelevant. The validity of a theory is not based on the creation of useful devices. It is based on its ability to accurately predict the results of an experiment. Relativity "has held up under extensive experimental scrutiny" <ref>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/</ref>.
#:If scientific theories were judged by their application in useful devices, the following Nobel-worthy theories would be rejected:
#::cosmic inflation
#::parity violation in the weak force
#::the "standard model", with strange/charm/top/bottom/mu/tau
#::the Chandrasekhar limit for white dwarf stars
#''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.''
#:The rules for calculating inertia and other questions of mechanics are well known. The inertia, that is, the way that a force affects an object's momentum, is well known. Hundreds of physics textbooks discuss this in great detail, in terms of the Lorentz transform and the concepts of the force and momentum 4-vectors. The "inertia" comes from what is now called the mass, which used to be called the "rest mass". Archaic treatments formulated this in terms of the "relativistic mass", which was different. The mass is a scalar, and has no direction. The formulas for calculating the motion in terms of forces, in the direction of motion or transverse to it, are well known.
#''Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.''
#:This seems to be another basic misunderstanding of relativity, from someone who gave up halfway through the textbook. Newtonian momentum (p = mv) does certainly indicate that a body with zero mass (''m'') must have zero momentum whatever its velocity (''v''). However, the relativistic equation for momentum is:
#::<math> p = \gamma m_0v\,</math>
#:where ''m''0 is the [[invariant mass|rest mass]] of the object and ''?'' is the Lorentz factor, given by
#::<math>\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2}}\,,</math>
#:where ''c'' is the [[speed of light]].
#:For the case of a photon, where rest mass is zero and ''v'' is equal to ''c'', this gives ''p'' as zero divided by zero - an undetermined value.
#:However, with the substitution of the famous E=mc2, where E is the energy of the body, the momentum equation can be rearranged to:
#::<math>pc = \sqrt{E^2 - m_0^2c^4}</math>
#:With a photon of zero rest mass, this gives:
#::<math>p = E/c\,</math>
#:Finally, substituting Planck's Equation for the energy of a photon <math>E = hf\,</math> where ''h'' is [[Planck's Constant]] and ''f'' is the frequency of the photon, we get the familiar (and experimentally demonstrated) value for a photon's momentum of:
#::<math>p = hf/c = h/\lambda\,</math>
#:where <math>\lambda</math> is the photon's wavelength.<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html</ref>
#''Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.''
#:There are no "conditions of a conservative field". A conservative field is one that has a curl of zero. Perhaps what was meant was that the gravitational field around the Sun, under Newtonian mechanics, is conservative. This is true because it is the gradient of an inverse-square scalar field, and all gradients have a curl of zero. Under relativity, the curl is also zero, due to the Bianchi identity and the symmetries of Riemann's tensor. See the extensive discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ACounterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=801452&oldid=799266 here].
#:The reference to the twin paradox suggests that the author thought that the passage of time is some kind of scalar field that should be obtainable as the path integral of a conservative vector field. It is not. Passage of time is a property of one's path through spacetime, and is similar to path length. (In fact, under the Lorentz/Minkowski metric, it is exactly path length.) Just as two paths from point A to point B on a sheet of paper can have different lengths, the paths of the twins can have different lengths, and hence different elapsed local times.
#''The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?''
#:The "Ehrenfest paradox" is not an actual paradox. Non-inertial relativistic motion of solid bodies is quite complicated, involving such concepts as "Born rigidity", "Langevin observers", the "Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric", and "quotient manifolds". In general, the subject is complicated, and has provided physicists with much food for thought. But it does not disprove relativity.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.''
#:The claims of that item are preposterous. Read the cited paper (or its abstract) carefully. Einstein's statement that clocks would run slower at the equator, due to time dilation, was correct according to special relativity alone. What Einstein didn't realize, because he wouldn't discover general relativity for another 10 years, was that the gravitational time shift would offset that.
#:A "geoid" (the shape dicussed in the paper) is a theoretical shape used in mathematical physics, that is in equilibrium between the effects of centrifugal force (from rotation) and gravity. It is essentially an oblate spheroid. It can be thought of as the shape a rotating planet would take if it were completely fluid. Or it could be thought of as the shape of "global sea level". Jupiter, because of its rapid rotation, has a very pronounced flattening at the poles. Since Jupiter is not solid, its shape is a geoid. The Earth is ''very nearly'' a geoid, of course. But not exactly, because of gravitational nonuniformities, and things like mountains, that can exist because of the Earth's rigidity. No one "made new assumptions about the Earth's shape" to justify anything. The assumption that the Earth's shape is a geoid is a theoretical assumption due to the ''approximately'' fluid nature of the Earth. But no one claims that the Earth's shape is anything other than what it is observed and measured to be.
#:What the paper is about is the fact that the effects of rotational speed and gravitational time dilation happen to cancel each other on an ideal geoid. So all clocks at "sea level" on an ideal geoid-shaped planet run at the same speed. Whether this result is implausible is not for us to say.
#:The cited paper does not refute relativity.
#''The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.''
#:The physics and mathematics underlying the "twin paradox" are well known. That one of the twins will have had to undergo different accelerations from the other before returning to the same point is what enables them to perceive different passage of time. This does not contradict relativity, and Einstein never said that it does. His explanation in terms of different acceleration is correct.
#:The comment about extending the length of the trip so that the acceleration would be ''de minimis'' is wrong. It seems to suggest that the acceleration could be reduced until it is negligible. It can be reduced by lengthening the trip, but it is not negligible. The Lorentz transform, and the equations of motion, are mathematically exact. The integral of a very small function over a long period is still significant. If the twins followed different paths in spacetime, which they must in order to measure different elapsed proper time, they must have undergone different accelerations, however small those differences may have been.
#:Of course, if they never come back to the same point, they could both undergo zero acceleration.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.''
#:Quantum field theory abounds with fields. The Higgs particle has a Higgs field. It has nothing to do with the "luminiferous aether".
#''Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.''
#:Time isn't a vector. It is a component of the vector space known as "spacetime". Vectors have negatives; the word "inverse" is not typically used here. While there are thermodynamic and other reasons for not allowing time to go backwards in the real world, the mathematics of spacetime allow vectors with any components, even negative ones.
#''In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.''
#:That a Bible verse "likely" refers to a scientific phenomenon does not make good science. The objection appears to be claiming that the Bible contradicts the Michelson-Morley experiment, so the latter must be wrong. The Michelson-Morley experiment is very well known, has been repeated countless times, and is incontrovertible. To suggest that the Bible verse in Genesis contradicts such an incontrovertible phenomenon does a disservice to both the Bible and to science.
#''It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].''
#:Modern formulations of the Lorentz aether theory may very well make it completely equivalent to relativity, both special and general. But that doesn't make relativity wrong; it just means that another theory is just as correct. The universal preference of the scientific community for relativity over the Lorentz theory is probably not based on religious faith, but on simplicity, as expressed in [[Occam's razor]]. The Lorentz theory postulates an aether that no experiment can possibly determine the properties of, while relativity postulates no aether.
#''Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."''
#:They are not "beyond understanding". They are simply beyond closed-form solution. Cosmologists work with approximate solutions, calculated by extensive computer calculations, all the time. A well-known example of this is the simulation of galaxy dynamics. Particle physicists do this also, in, for example, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) calculations. It is fortunate that the equations of Keplerian/Newtonian planetary motion were solvable by the mathematical methods of the 17th century—a closed-form solution to a second-order differential equation. Modern physics problems are much harder. But, with modern computers, we can solve the equations of gravity to enormous precision.
#''Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein's Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."''
#:The first cited reference, from which the quote was taken, is a totally crackpot web page, from a web site that seems to specialize in hosting crackpot papers. The writing is utterly illiterate and incoherent, as in this sentence: "According to Faraday's Law it can be explained as that, duo to the magnetic flux in conductor line changing, firstly induced electromotive force dU coming from the line-winded conductor to bring out voltage, then based on differential form <math>I = \frac{-\sigma s dU}{dl}</math> of Ohm's Law, the physical natural would be regarded as 'voltage before electric current' "
#''Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.''
#:The equations of electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations), and their connection with relativity, are well known. Hundreds of electrodynamics textbooks cover this subject. The equations are correct at all realizable speeds, even relativistic (''near'' the speed of light) speeds. (Maxwell's equations are said to be the only equations from classical physics that did not need to be modified for relativity.) The equations correctly describe the behavior of magnets (this is presumably what was meant by "solenoids"), charges, and electric and magnetic fields, even at speeds near the speed of light. Of course the equations don't work ''at'' the speed of light. The cited article never discussed speeds ''near'' the speed of light, only ''at'' the speed of light. The questioner was rightly taken to task for his physically unrealizable assumption.
#''General Relativity predicts how the gravitational fields of the Sun and Moon generate ocean tides. However, in the summer of 2009, tides along the East Coast of the United States were higher than expected.''
#:This one is utterly absurd. The calculation of the gravity of the Sun and Moon in producing tides has been known for hundreds of years, explained by Newtonian gravity. The effect of relativity on this is microscopic.
#:
#:The cited article is about the many things affecting the gross behavior of tides. Keep in mind that the factors affecting the tides involve a lot of hard-to-precisely-quantify things such as wind and ocean currents, and the melting of glaciers. As an example of how imprecise things are, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans differ in mean height by about 8 inches at the Panama Canal, and the tides are about 20 feet on the Pacific side and 1 foot on the Atlantic side. As another example, tides in the Bay of Fundy are as high as 53 feet. Tides are not a simple calculation from Newtonian or Einsteinian mechanics. The difference between Newtonian gravitation and Einsteinian gravitation is utterly insignificant in comparison to these gross effects.
#''During the gravity assists from Earth, both the Galileo spacecraft and the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) spacecraft experienced a change in velocity different than that predicted by General Relativity.''
#:Saying that, every time someone finds some phenomenon that is puzzling, that shows that relativity is wrong, is not a convincing way to do science. The cited paper is about unexpected behavior of some spacecraft as they use "gravity assists" in near-Earth flybys. The hypothesized causes involve errors in the mathematical models to calculate such effects as relativistic effects (the detailed calculation of them, not the question of whether they exist), tidal effects, Earth radiation pressure, or atmospheric drag. The paper suggests that most of those can be ruled out, though there could be round-off and integration errors, or errors in the spherical harmonic representation of Earth's gravity field.
#''The supermassive black hole within the Andromeda galaxy puzzled researchers by increasing in brightness by a factor of 100 in 2006.''
#:This item is about unexpected behavior of the supermassive black holes at the centers of many galaxies. Black holes are a prediction of relativity. The fact that people are still learning new things about them is hardly surprising.
#:
#:The cited article never mentions relativity or the possibility that relativity is wrong. In fact, the entire discussion is in the context of black holes. The second study was about a black hole at the center of a galaxy apparently wandering out of place. The hypothesis is that a merger of two galaxies was involved, and "the theoretical prediction is that when two black holes merge, the newly combined black hole receives a 'kick' due to the emission of gravitational waves ..." Gravitational waves are, of course, a specific prediction of general relativity.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:science]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-09-07T02:38:53Z

JudyJ: /* Lede quote */ I was going to put the neutrino thing back, but Andy beat me to it.

Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-08-19T19:02:21Z

JudyJ: Fix numbering.

This is intended as an article rebutting the points in the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article. That article's talk page has proven to be less than satisfactory for this purpose, because it gets archived, and much of its material has degenerated into personal disputes. We believe that the two sides of the issue are better handled in two articles—this one and [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], rather than a talk page.

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

#''Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found. Sound like global warming?''
#:True, the ''direct'' searches for gravitational waves have not yet yielded any clear results, though indirect observations have been made (the Hulse/Taylor observations.) Before people dismiss indirect observations, recall that no one has ever seen an electron.
#:The Earth-based LIGO detectors have, so far, not detected any unambiguous gravitational wave signatures from such events as a black-hole merger. It is barely sensitive enough to find such things in the Milky Way or very nearby galaxies. It is being upgraded in a plan that should complete in 2014. It is hoped that, after the upgrade, it will be able to see these events clearly and unambiguously.
#:The space-based LISA detectors have not been built yet, and the original proposal has been scrapped because of budgetary problems. A new version, called "eLISA" has been proposed, and should be sensitive to events as far away as redshift 15.
#:Whether these experiments are a good use of money is another question, one that has no bearing on whether relativity is correct.
#::The objection has been raised that the experiments should not have been funded if scientists were going to ignore negative results.
#:::The results are only partly negative. The scientists knew all along that a certain amount of luck would be involved in finding a sufficiently strong signal within the time frame of the experiment. The failure so far does not mean that black-hole mergers do not emit gravitational waves; just that they haven't been lucky enough to find them. They will continue to search.
#:This has nothing to do with global warming.
#''The orbital radius of the Moon's orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts''.
#:This could be a counterexample to both GR and Newtonian gravity--in both, the radius is defined in terms of conserved quantities.
#::The objection has been raised that this would still be a counterexample to Relativity.
#:::Yes, if it were actually true that the Moon's orbit is undergoing some kind of anomalous perturbation, it would indeed be a disproof of Relativity, Newtonian mechanics, and, in fact, all of physics since Galileo.
#''The Pioneer anomaly.''
#:The "Pioneer anomaly" is the deviation in the motion of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft from their predicted motion, at the distance of Saturn and beyond. It should be noted that the anomaly is about 1000 times greater than the difference between the classical Newtonian prediction and the prediction of relativity, so this is not a problem with relativity ''per se''; it is more general than that.
#:Calculating the force caused by heat (that is, miniscule amounts of infrared radiation) from the radioactive power source was one of the first effects that was examined. The anomaly arose when this and other known effects could not fully explain the deviation.
#:The problem is believed to have been solved by taking into account the reflection of the radiation from the power source off of the back of the antenna dish<ref>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/</ref>. The solution is sometimes described as an application of "Phong shading", a technique of computer graphics that is now considered imprecise. But Phong shading itself is not what is important. The "ray tracing" computer graphics technique that underlies Phong shading was what inspired the scientists to take reflection into account.
#''the solar flattening is ... too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation.''
#:This observation is interesting, but the predictions of oblateness come from analysis of fluid mechanics; relativity is not involved, and the cited paper makes no mention of relativity.
#:
#:We expect a very large rotating body to show oblateness according to well-known principles involving centrifugal force. This is particularly easy to observe with Jupiter, though the other planets, including Earth, show it too. Scientists do not know why the Sun exhibits nearly zero oblateness, but relativity is not believed to be the cause.
#:
#:Now it happens that there ''is'' a connection between solar oblateness and the calculation of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and that involves General Relativity. When checking the observed precession against the effect predicted by Relativity, one needs to subtract the effect of solar oblateness, along with the other effects, such as equinoctial precession and the gravitational effects of other planets. The effect of solar oblateness is a mere .0254 arcseconds per century, insignificant in comparison with precession (about 5500) and other planets' gravity (about 550). The figure of .0254 was calculated based on what fluid dynamics predicted, and was subtracted in the figures quoted below in item #9. When that tiny effect is removed, the error bars still overlap that for the GR prediction.
#''Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity. The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement''.
#:This is an interesting observation. The world's best scientific minds are looking into it. That relativity is incorrect is not being taken seriously as a possible explanation.
#:'''Update:''' The problem seems to have been caused by a faulty cable connection between a computer and a GPS unit. When the connection was repaired, the travel time increased by 60 nanoseconds, which had been the amount of the anomaly <ref>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/22/technology-faster-than-light-neutrinos.html</ref> <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/22/loose-wire-led-to-stunning-faster-than-light-particle-finding/?intcmp=features</ref>.
#:The objection has been raised that a recent news report from the BBC ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is also contradictory, since neutrinos have mass and are therefore forbidden by relativity to travel at exactly the speed of light. Since the neutrino energies were 17GeV, and the current estimate for the neutrino mass is about 0.25eV, the deviation from the speed of light would be about 1 part in 1022. This means that the neutrinos would arrive at the detector about .26x10-24 seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is one quarter of a billionth of a femtosecond, or about .26x10-15 of a nanosecond. The accuracy of the GPS units and cesium clocks used in the measurement is greater than a nanosecond, so the discrepancy cannot possibly be detected. It is unfortunate that the claim "the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos" was taken so literally.
#''Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").''
#:This may be another case of the Pioneer anomaly, or it may be something else. However, it is very unlikely that it shows that relativity is wrong and Newtonian mechanics is correct.
#''Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "dark matter" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it due to the acceleration of various parts of galaxies that accelerated funny that led to dark matter (based on simple Newtonian dynamics)?
#''The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "dark energy" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:This is the dark energy/cosmological constant argument. The cosmological constant was added by Einstein after he discovered that his field equations (<math>\mathbf{G}=8\pi \mathbf{T}</math>) predicted that the universe was expanding, contradicting his firm philosophical belief in a static universe. So he inserted <math>\Lambda \mathbf{g}</math> to the LHS so that it would predict a static universe. A few years later, Hubble showed the universe to be expanding, and Einstein called the cosmological constant the worst mistake of his career. So, it sort of had a bad reputation, and people didn't want to seriously consider it, until recent observations have shown the universe's expansion to be accelerating forced them to do so. It could have had a very different history. Einstein could have had that term in the EFE's from the start, and pointed out that it would determine if the universe's expansion was accelerating (or not expanding at all!) and it would take further observation to determine its value.
#''Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.''
#:A footnote goes on to say that "In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01) ..."
#:Considering only the ''anomalous'' precession, that is, the precession that remains after all known other factors (other planets and asteroids, solar oblateness) have been accounted for, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values are:
#::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
#::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
#::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
#::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
#::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijpers 2008]]
#:These error bars, and that of the relativity formula, all overlap.
#:The formula for mechanics under general relativity is complicated, but it is not contrived or conformed. "Conformed" suggests that it was somehow adjusted or "tweaked" to match the 42.98 figure. The formula is
#:::<math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>
#:To begin to explain the formula, Newton's law of gravity, combining F = ma and <math>F = \frac{KMm}{r^2}\,</math>, is
#::<math>a = \frac{KM}{r^2}\,</math>
#:In Einstein's equation, <math>T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "stress-energy tensor", and <math>8 \pi T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> gives the density of the Sun, taking the place of <math>\frac{M}{r^2}\,</math>. <math>G_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "Einstein curvature tensor", and says how spacetime curves to create an apparent gravitational acceleration.
#:There is nothing to tweak to get a value of 42.98 arcseconds. 8 is 8. <math>\pi\,</math> is <math>\pi\,</math>. K is Newton's constant of gravitation in both formulas.
#:
#::::The above discussion notwithstanding, more sophisticated technology has measured a precession of 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01, which disproves the prediction of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Notice how publication of data stopped two decades ago when the observations diverged from the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
#:Measurements of planetary motion are now calculated relative to the "International Celestial Reference Frame" (ICFR), replacing the older, and much less accurate "equinoctial" frame. The older measurements got a value of about 5600 arcseconds/century for the precession of Mercury, nearly all of which (5025 arcseconds) was because of the rotation of the "equinoctial" frame. The ICFR frame removes that source of uncertainty, and, with the very accurate radar measurements conducted by NASA between 1987 and 1997<ref>[http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf]</ref>, gets a value of 574.10±0.65 arcseconds observed, in good agreement with the predicted 574.64±0.69 value.
#:
#:The ICFR is described in [http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Publications/TechnicalNotes/tn32.html this] document, dated 2003.
#''The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.''
#:The formulas for velocity, momentum, and mass can in fact be written in such a way that they appear to have discontinuities, just as the tangent function has discontinuities while the underlying sine and cosine functions do not. But they can also be written in a form that does not show discontinuities.
#:All particles, with or without mass, can have any value of momentum. The formula for the velocity of a particle, in terms of its mass and momentum, is
#:::<math>v = \frac{pc}{\sqrt{m^2c^2+p^2}}</math>
#:For a particle with mass, this means that momentum of zero gives a speed of zero, and, as the momentum approaches infinity, the speed approaches c.
#:For a massless particle, the speed is always c.
#''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''
#:The simple answer is, unequivocally, that it acts on the 'relativistic' mass. The question seems to relate to a simple misunderstanding of Special Relativity. Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance in the body's mass with regard to the direction of the force. Thus to a given observer, a force in any direction will operate on the same mass. However, to a different observer, this mass may be different, although still the constant with regard to the direction of the force.
#''The observed lack of curvature in overall space.''
#:What? Is has been observed
#''The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.''
#:We're still working on a quantum theory of gravity; this isn't so much a counter-example as saying that (classical)GR isn't valid in that domain.
#''The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.''
#:Special Relativity only forbids the transmission of matter, energy or information at a speed faster than light. There are plenty of other things that can move faster than light. Consider a laser on Earth which is rotating on a pivot, whose light shines onto the hull of a satellite 200,000Km away (2e8 metres). If the laser rotates at a sedentary one revolution ever four seconds, the speed of the laser beam's tip crossing the satellite's hull is 3.14e8 metres per second - faster than the speed of light. However, this is not a transfer of information. Any information is travelling from Earth to the satellite, obeying the universal speed limit. Similarly, the only information that can be transmitted by the quantum entanglement of two particles is from the originator of the particles to the two observers, not from one observer to another. Faster than light transmission of information using quantum entanglement has never been observed, nor has even conceived how such a mechanism might work.<ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612</ref>
#''The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.''
#:As an argument against relativity, there are two reasons that this is invalid (beyond simply questioning the evidential validity of the Bible):
#::a) These passages clearly refer to a [[miracle]]. A miracle, being an act of God, is not subject to the laws of physics.
#::b) It is highly debatable as to whether the verses do describe [[action-at-a-distance]] in the sense of an action whose influence travels instantaneously (and therefore faster than the speed of light). This itself may be argued from two viewpoints:
#:::i) When reading these passages, as with consideration of many apparent relativistic anomalies, the true picture of causality must be considered. In each case there are two apparent events. Event A - Jesus does something (says 'thy son liveth', says 'be it unto thee even as thou wilt', or Christ's spirit leaving His body). Event B - the apparent result (the son lives, her daughter is made whole, or the earth quakes). However, it is not the case in any of these examples that A causes B. Both A and B are caused by a third event. In the first two cases it is Christ's thought that causes the miracle and that causes His lips to announce the miracle. This thought would have occurred fractions of a second before either event, and is the non-instantaneous cause of both. In the last case it is Christ's death that is the precursor and cause of both events.
#:::ii) It must be considered that at the time when the Gospels were written, neither their authors nor their intended readers were aware of any concept of the speed of light and were unable to measure the billionths of a second difference between the events being considered here. Thus just as in modern parlance the phrase 'at the same moment' has a tolerance of milliseconds (unless specifically couched to mean otherwise) so do the various terms used by the Evangelists. They would never have considered it an important issue, and would therefore not have worried about the degree of precision.
#::::Miracles do not violate logic, and the [[Theory of Relativity]] asserts that these [[action-at-a-distance]] miracles described in the [[Gospels]] are impossible. No plausible medium for these miracles, even if they were non-instantaneous action-at-a-distance, has been proposed.
#''The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.''
#:Gravitons are a prediction of [[Quantum Theory]], not of relativity, although the concept is an extension of the relativistic idea that forces take a finite time to be transmitted over a distance.
#:No one expects to observe gravitons. Calculations show that it is well-nigh impossible with any conceivable detector that we could build. No one is designing, funding, or building any apparatus to search for gravitons.
#:Now it happens that theoretical physicists discuss and speculate on the existence and nature of such things as gravitons as part of their theoretical work. Some of these discussions take place among scientists who receive their salaries from various government agencies that are funded by taxpayers. Whether all of the things that scientists think about, talk about, and write about constitute a good use of money is not for us to say.
#''Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do not experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity''
#:Whilst this observation is unconfirmed, if true it would still not invalidate relativity. Many things may vary with position in space, and relativity does not deny this. There is no suggestion that the fine-structure constant is different at the same point in space for observers in different non-inertial frame, as the 'counterexample' implies.
#''The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a black hole. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."''
#:When physicists encounter something puzzling, their first reaction is usually not to assume that it shows that relativity is wrong. In fact the cited article never mentions relativity at all. It is about "magnetars", a type of neutron star about which very little is known, other than their extremely strong magnetic fields.
#:Many scientific discoveries have arisen from observations that were puzzling at first. Edwin Hubble's observations of galactic redshift led to the realization that the universe is expanding isotropically. The observations by Jocelyn Bell and Antony Hewish, of periodic pulsation in the radio emissions of a star, were so puzzling at first that they seemed to suggest transmissions from intelligent extraterrestrials. They had actually discovered pulsars. When Carl Anderson saw unexplained particle tracks in a cloud chamber, he had discovered antiparticles.
#:None of these people assumed that the explanation for these observations was that relativity was wrong. They were all astrophysicists and were quite familiar with relativity. In fact, Anderson's antiparticles had been predicted by the Dirac equation, a synthesis of special relativity and the Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics, from a few years earlier.
#''The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.''
#:It is utterly baffling how anyone could make such an assertion. The insights from relativity are multitudinous. Relativity forms the basis for astronomy, cosmology, electrodynamics, and many other fields. The interconnection between the electric and magnetic forces is now seen to be a straightforward consequence of relativity. Relativity combined with quantum mechanics are the basis of all of contemporary physics.
#:The Dirac equation, which gives rise to antiparticles and the theory of spinors, was an early example of introducing relatitivity into the Schrödinger equation.
#:More generally, special relativity was combined with quantum theory to produce [[quantum field theory]] (QFT). An example of a QFT is [[quantum electrodynamics]], the most precise theory in physics. Furthermore, string theory is Lorentz invariant and produces general relativity in the low energy limit.
#''The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.''
#:We are baffled that anyone would connect this problem with relativity. The non-relativity principle of conservation of mass has been known, in general, for hundreds of years, going back to the time of the alchemists, and has been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. The principle of conservation of energy has also been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. Relativity simply generalizes this to a principle of both together, with even greater precision. So, in principle, it is recognized that the mass of the standard kilogram could change if an energy transfer took place. But no combustion, corrosion, or nuclear decay is suspected of having taken place. In any case, the amount of energy that would have to have been released is 1.25 megawatt-hours, which would certainly have been noticed.
#:Relativity does not promise uniformity of the universe any more strongly than classical physics did. The apparent change in mass of the standard kilogram is simply a mystery.
#''The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 23, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about speculation that the constant "alpha" (see item 17 above) may not be constant. It might have decreased, by 45 parts per billion, as recently (in cosmic time) as two billion years ago, based on data from the Oklo "natural fission reactor". Other measurements have been made of alpha at earlier times, such as measurement of light from distant quasars. These measurements suggest that alpha has increased by a few parts per 105 in 12 billion years.
#:There is plenty of literature on theories about change in alpha, and some of it indicates that this may be due to change in the speed of light. Specifically, the Oklo data may suggest that the speed of light may have been increasing slightly. (This is the opposite of the direction of change claimed by fundamentalists, but is much smaller in any case.)
#:Speculation on a different speed of light in the past may relate to theories of "cosmic inflation", which touches on the question of why the Cosmic Background Radiation is so nearly isotropic, which indicates a near-uniformity of temperature, which requires inflation or some equivalent mechanism.
#:None of the scientists working in this area seem to doubt the fundamental correctness of relativity.
#''"According to Einstein's view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 23, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about a very recent and exciting development in fundamental theoretical physics, generally called the "holographic principle". This proposes that our perceived 3-dimensional space actually arises from a "hologram" on a 2-dimensional space. Much has been written about this recently, including the best-selling book ''The Hidden Reality'' by Brian Greene. This hologram manifests itself in the "foamlike" ripples of spacetime, at the scale of the Planck length, which is so small that there seemed to be no way to detect it directly.
#:But it seems that some "inexplicable static" in the results of another unrelated experiment, searching for gravitational waves, may be the first hints of the holographic nature of space. If so, this is a lucky and serendipitous result.
#:Serendipitous scientific discoveries have been made many times, as when Henri Becquerel put a photographic plate in a dark drawer because the weather was cloudy, and thereby discovered radioactivity.
#:That the "foamlike" nature of space at short distances is contrary to the continuous nature presumed by classical mechanics and relativity has been known for some time. This is the problem that quantum gravity seeks to solve.
#''"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don't gel."''
#:Quoting things without explaining the context is often a bad idea, and the indicated item is a good example of this. It gives no hint of what the article from which the quote was taken is about. The article is about one scientist's contribution to the problem of unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. The scientist, Petr HoYava of Berkeley, has come up with an approach that he says eliminates the infinities that have plagued other unification attempts.
#:The two quoted sentences are HoYava's ''statement of the problem''. So it comes as no surprise that he says that there is a conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics. The very next paragraph begins:
#::The solution, HoYava says, is to snip threads that bind time to space at very high energies .... At low energies, general relativity emerges from this underlying framework ..."
#:It is well known that, just as classical mechanics emerges from quantum mechanics at non-microscopic scales, and classical mechanics emerges from relativity at low speeds, both relativity and quantum mechanics should emerge from the Grand Unified Theory (whatever that turns out to be) at the appropriate scales.
#''The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.''
#:The topology of wormholes is an interesting topic, widely discussed among theoretical physicists and mathematicians. There is much speculation about what they would be like (if they could exist at all under quantum gravity), and what kind of "cosmic censorship" or "chronology protection" theorems might make practical time travel impossible. The nature of these theorems seems to be intertwined with theories of quantum gravity and "grand unification", so the exact form of the "cosmic censorship", if it exists, can't be known until quantum mechanics and relativistic geometry are unified. It is an exciting field of research. No one believes that the "cosmic censorship" will take the form of relativity not being a true non-quantum approximation to reality.
#''The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.''
#:Since the 70's much work has been done on the subject of black hole thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973CMaPh..31..161B</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9307035v1.pdf</ref>, most notably by the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge [[Stephen Hawking]]. When quantum field theory is added to the analysis of black holes it is found that they do not possess "low entropy" (quite the opposite, in fact) and are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...7.2333B</ref>. The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article has labelled this work in a footnote as "[c]ontrived explanations", with no explanation for this characterization given.
#''Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.''
#:Please read the cited paper carefully. It is a survey of their observations over a 30 year period. They point out that their data matches general relativity to within 0.2 percent, and is now down in the "noise" of other effects, such as lack of accurate knowledge of just how far away the pulsars are, and lack of accurate knowledge of galactic constants. As they say in the abstract, "tighter bounds will be difficult to obtain." The paper, written in 2004, also notes that, because the pulsar beams are slowly tilting out of the line of sight to Earth, "A core component [of the emission] is quite prominent in the data taken in 1980-81, but it faded very significantly between 1980 and 1998 and was nearly gone by 2003."
#:That is why they are not releasing further data. 30 years is a fairly long time to watch a pair of pulsars. They're not doing the experiment any more—it did its job, and it's finished. No one drops cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa any more either.
#:The data are not diverging from the predictions.
#''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.''
#:The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses general relativity to achieve greater accuracy<ref>http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html</ref>.
#:In fact, relativity is what makes the magnetic force necessary. The magnetic force is used in, among other things, electric motors and generators.
#:Even if it were the case that no practical applications have come from relativity, that is irrelevant. The validity of a theory is not based on the creation of useful devices. It is based on its ability to accurately predict the results of an experiment. Relativity "has held up under extensive experimental scrutiny" <ref>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/</ref>.
#:If scientific theories were judged by their application in useful devices, the following Nobel-worthy theories would be rejected:
#::cosmic inflation
#::parity violation in the weak force
#::the "standard model", with strange/charm/top/bottom/mu/tau
#::the Chandrasekhar limit for white dwarf stars
#''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.''
#:The rules for calculating inertia and other questions of mechanics are well known. The inertia, that is, the way that a force affects an object's momentum, is well known. Hundreds of physics textbooks discuss this in great detail, in terms of the Lorentz transform and the concepts of the force and momentum 4-vectors. The "inertia" comes from what is now called the mass, which used to be called the "rest mass". Archaic treatments formulated this in terms of the "relativistic mass", which was different. The mass is a scalar, and has no direction. The formulas for calculating the motion in terms of forces, in the direction of motion or transverse to it, are well known.
#''Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.''
#:This seems to be another basic misunderstanding of relativity, from someone who gave up halfway through the textbook. Newtonian momentum (p = mv) does certainly indicate that a body with zero mass (''m'') must have zero momentum whatever its velocity (''v''). However, the relativistic equation for momentum is:
#::<math> p = \gamma m_0v\,</math>
#:where ''m''0 is the [[invariant mass|rest mass]] of the object and ''?'' is the Lorentz factor, given by
#::<math>\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2}}\,,</math>
#:where ''c'' is the [[speed of light]].
#:For the case of a photon, where rest mass is zero and ''v'' is equal to ''c'', this gives ''p'' as zero divided by zero - an undetermined value.
#:However, with the substitution of the famous E=mc2, where E is the energy of the body, the momentum equation can be rearranged to:
#::<math>pc = \sqrt{E^2 - m_0^2c^4}</math>
#:With a photon of zero rest mass, this gives:
#::<math>p = E/c\,</math>
#:Finally, substituting Planck's Equation for the energy of a photon <math>E = hf\,</math> where ''h'' is [[Planck's Constant]] and ''f'' is the frequency of the photon, we get the familiar (and experimentally demonstrated) value for a photon's momentum of:
#::<math>p = hf/c = h/\lambda\,</math>
#:where <math>\lambda</math> is the photon's wavelength.<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html</ref>
#''Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.''
#:There are no "conditions of a conservative field". A conservative field is one that has a curl of zero. Perhaps what was meant was that the gravitational field around the Sun, under Newtonian mechanics, is conservative. This is true because it is the gradient of an inverse-square scalar field, and all gradients have a curl of zero. Under relativity, the curl is also zero, due to the Bianchi identity and the symmetries of Riemann's tensor. See the extensive discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ACounterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=801452&oldid=799266 here].
#:The reference to the twin paradox suggests that the author thought that the passage of time is some kind of scalar field that should be obtainable as the path integral of a conservative vector field. It is not. Passage of time is a property of one's path through spacetime, and is similar to path length. (In fact, under the Lorentz/Minkowski metric, it is exactly path length.) Just as two paths from point A to point B on a sheet of paper can have different lengths, the paths of the twins can have different lengths, and hence different elapsed local times.
#''The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?''
#:The "Ehrenfest paradox" is not an actual paradox. Non-inertial relativistic motion of solid bodies is quite complicated, involving such concepts as "Born rigidity", "Langevin observers", the "Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric", and "quotient manifolds". In general, the subject is complicated, and has provided physicists with much food for thought. But it does not disprove relativity.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.''
#:The claims of that item are preposterous. Read the cited paper (or its abstract) carefully. Einstein's statement that clocks would run slower at the equator, due to time dilation, was correct according to special relativity alone. What Einstein didn't realize, because he wouldn't discover general relativity for another 10 years, was that the gravitational time shift would offset that.
#:A "geoid" (the shape dicussed in the paper) is a theoretical shape used in mathematical physics, that is in equilibrium between the effects of centrifugal force (from rotation) and gravity. It is essentially an oblate spheroid. It can be thought of as the shape a rotating planet would take if it were completely fluid. Or it could be thought of as the shape of "global sea level". Jupiter, because of its rapid rotation, has a very pronounced flattening at the poles. Since Jupiter is not solid, its shape is a geoid. The Earth is ''very nearly'' a geoid, of course. But not exactly, because of gravitational nonuniformities, and things like mountains, that can exist because of the Earth's rigidity. No one "made new assumptions about the Earth's shape" to justify anything. The assumption that the Earth's shape is a geoid is a theoretical assumption due to the ''approximately'' fluid nature of the Earth. But no one claims that the Earth's shape is anything other than what it is observed and measured to be.
#:What the paper is about is the fact that the effects of rotational speed and gravitational time dilation happen to cancel each other on an ideal geoid. So all clocks at "sea level" on an ideal geoid-shaped planet run at the same speed. Whether this result is implausible is not for us to say.
#:The cited paper does not refute relativity.
#''The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.''
#:The physics and mathematics underlying the "twin paradox" are well known. That one of the twins will have had to undergo different accelerations from the other before returning to the same point is what enables them to perceive different passage of time. This does not contradict relativity, and Einstein never said that it does. His explanation in terms of different acceleration is correct.
#:The comment about extending the length of the trip so that the acceleration would be ''de minimis'' is wrong. It seems to suggest that the acceleration could be reduced until it is negligible. It can be reduced by lengthening the trip, but it is not negligible. The Lorentz transform, and the equations of motion, are mathematically exact. The integral of a very small function over a long period is still significant. If the twins followed different paths in spacetime, which they must in order to measure different elapsed proper time, they must have undergone different accelerations, however small those differences may have been.
#:Of course, if they never come back to the same point, they could both undergo zero acceleration.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.''
#:Quantum field theory abounds with fields. The Higgs particle has a Higgs field. It has nothing to do with the "luminiferous aether".
#''Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.''
#:Time isn't a vector. It is a component of the vector space known as "spacetime". Vectors have negatives; the word "inverse" is not typically used here. While there are thermodynamic and other reasons for not allowing time to go backwards in the real world, the mathematics of spacetime allow vectors with any components, even negative ones.
#''In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.''
#:That a Bible verse "likely" refers to a scientific phenomenon does not make good science. The objection appears to be claiming that the Bible contradicts the Michelson-Morley experiment, so the latter must be wrong. The Michelson-Morley experiment is very well known, has been repeated countless times, and is incontrovertible. To suggest that the Bible verse in Genesis contradicts such an incontrovertible phenomenon does a disservice to both the Bible and to science.
#''It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].''
#:Modern formulations of the Lorentz aether theory may very well make it completely equivalent to relativity, both special and general. But that doesn't make relativity wrong; it just means that another theory is just as correct. The universal preference of the scientific community for relativity over the Lorentz theory is probably not based on religious faith, but on simplicity, as expressed in [[Occam's razor]]. The Lorentz theory postulates an aether that no experiment can possibly determine the properties of, while relativity postulates no aether.
#''Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."''
#:They are not "beyond understanding". They are simply beyond closed-form solution. Cosmologists work with approximate solutions, calculated by extensive computer calculations, all the time. A well-known example of this is the simulation of galaxy dynamics. Particle physicists do this also, in, for example, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) calculations. It is fortunate that the equations of Keplerian/Newtonian planetary motion were solvable by the mathematical methods of the 17th century—a closed-form solution to a second-order differential equation. Modern physics problems are much harder. But, with modern computers, we can solve the equations of gravity to enormous precision.
#''Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein's Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."''
#:The first cited reference, from which the quote was taken, is a totally crackpot web page, from a web site that seems to specialize in hosting crackpot papers. The writing is utterly illiterate and incoherent, as in this sentence: "According to Faraday's Law it can be explained as that, duo to the magnetic flux in conductor line changing, firstly induced electromotive force dU coming from the line-winded conductor to bring out voltage, then based on differential form <math>I = \frac{-\sigma s dU}{dl}</math> of Ohm's Law, the physical natural would be regarded as 'voltage before electric current' "
#''Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.''
#:The equations of electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations), and their connection with relativity, are well known. Hundreds of electrodynamics textbooks cover this subject. The equations are correct at all realizable speeds, even relativistic (''near'' the speed of light) speeds. (Maxwell's equations are said to be the only equations from classical physics that did not need to be modified for relativity.) The equations correctly describe the behavior of magnets (this is presumably what was meant by "solenoids"), charges, and electric and magnetic fields, even at speeds near the speed of light. Of course the equations don't work ''at'' the speed of light. The cited article never discussed speeds ''near'' the speed of light, only ''at'' the speed of light. The questioner was rightly taken to task for his physically unrealizable assumption.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:science]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-08-18T21:54:47Z

JudyJ: /* The roundness of the sun */

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-08-18T21:54:02Z

JudyJ: /* The roundness of the sun */

<big>'''For a point-by-point summary of this page, see [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]].'''</big>
 
 
See also the page [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]
 
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

== Notice of Pending Revision ==

It's been over a week now since the reversion (on 9th December) of several edits I made. Despite my request, now explanation has been posted, in contrast to the explanations I gave for each of my changes. I therefore see it only fit to return the article to the state I left it in.

However, to avoid 'edit wars' I think it only fair to give notification of this, to allow a final chance for justification of the reversion.

The specific changes are:

*Removal of the item: ''''27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.'''' since it is a duplicate of ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass -- does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''''

*Removal of ''''26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.'''' After much discussion on this page, it seems generally agreed that there useful devices in existence. (I appreciate that some mention of GPS may be necessary, but a footnote, however valid, cannot justify the presence of the invalid section in the main article to which it is attached. GPS can have it's own separate entry on this page as a counterexample, if need be.)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:35, 31 December 2011 (EST)
*Removal of ''''30. The Ehrenfest Paradox ...'''', ''''31. The Twin Paradox ...'''' and ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle...'''' since these are paradoxes and (as discussed above) are not appropriate to a page of counterexamples. These entries have already been moved to and expanded upon in the main [[Relativity]] page.

--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:26, 17 December 2011 (EST)

::I've now implemented these changes since no objection has been forthcoming to my explaination above, posted in accordance with [[Conservapedia:Editing_etiquette#Etiquette_Rule:|editting etiquette]]. If there are any objections please discuss them here rather than engaging in revert wars. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:36, 30 December 2011 (EST)

:::Sorry, just noticing these comments now. Let's discuss before removing insights from entries.

:::Items 27 and 10 are similar, but not identical. 27 highlights a conflict between Relativity and basic principles of physics; item 10 emphasizes an internal contradiction in the theory that remains unanswered.

:::Item 26 remains unrebutted. Relativity has produced nothing of value.

:::Item 30 and 31 are logical problems which are valid counterexamples, given that Relativity claims to be based on logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Items 10, 27, and 31 should be taken out because they are just wrong, and make Conservapedia look lazy. Anyone who has learned about relativity from any college-level textbook less than about 40 or 50 years old knows how to do the calculations involving relativistic velocity, momentum, force, and acceleration. Our readers know this, and items 10 and 27 will just leave them scratching their heads about the diligence of Conservapedia. Item 31, the "twin paradox", is also very well known. The fact that something has the word "paradox" in its name doesn't mean that the subject is flawed. Otherwise, we would have to take the Russel paradox too seriously, and perhaps conclude that this: "The next sentence is false. The preceding sentence is true" means that the universe will blow up. The phrase "twin paradox" is simply a name. Everyone knows what is going on. Even Einstein. If it were actually a counterexample, this fact would be well known by now.[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 10:11, 31 December 2011 (EST)

*10: ''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass? '' It applies to the relativistic mass: that is observable in a [[cyclotron]]. So, it is one of those question you may speculate or philosophy all day long, but do the experiment (and the mass), and it is answered.
*27: ''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions. '' In light of the above, this seems to be wrong.
*30: ''The Ehrenfest Paradox'' interesting paradox, solvable and no counterexample
*31: ''The Twin Paradox'' no counterexample to relativity, it's solved in any physic's course on this subject
*26: ''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory'' please re-read the archives, they include plenty material on the GPS (though you seem to ignore it)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:36, 31 December 2011 (EST)

On the points 10 and 27 issue, whilst they may or may not be duplicates, may or may not be counterexamples, they're still just plain wrong, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of relativity. According to Special Relativity, the inertial mass of a body appears the same to all observers who are in the same inertial frame of reference (i.e. who are moving at the same velocity as each other, which may be different from that of the body being observed). If a force is applied to the body it will produce an acceleration of the same magnitude (though obviously in a different direction) regardless of the direction of the force. The force itself can in no sense be an 'observer' since it has no velocity. For observers in a different non-inertial frame, they will observe a different magnitude of acceleration, but it will still be the same regardless of the direction of the force. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:27, 31 December 2011 (EST)

I deleted #10 and #27. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:06, 1 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], you've reverted an edit that everyone involved in the discussion other than yourself seems to be agreed upon. Can you please at least attempt to justify your position? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:20, 1 January 2012 (EST)

:''deletion of educational information is disfavored on this site; deletions restored'' How can the perpetuation of false information be educational? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:37, 1 January 2012 (EST)

This entire page is ludicrous. If you don't believe in Einstein's relativity, then do you believe in Galilean relativity? If Einstein's relativity is correct up to small corrections, does it invalidate cultural relativism? Ironically, this page signifies to me that Conservapedia itself is an exercise in relative truth; the idea that individuals are entitled to make up whatever facts are consistent with their preconceptions. [[User:Aram|Aram]] 16:26, 1 January 2012 (EST)

== Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light. ==

As a source for the statement [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279 this discussion] on physicsforum.org is given. Here are all the contributions to this discussion:

{|
!A Dhingra
|The moment the magnetic field is generated, it should take some time to reach some distance. It cannot reach infinity instantly, it should have some speed, and that speed cannot be more than that of light. So let’s say that the newly generated magnetic field, through a current carrying wire, travels with the speed of light. Now for the application of the faraday’s law, let’s bring a magnet near a solenoid, through which initially no current flows, and make the magnet move with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case?

Take another case, when instead of a magnet we have a different circuit containing a solenoid through which current flows when the switch is made on, and this circuit is held stationary moving the other one with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case? What I think is that, as the system without current is moving as fast as the magnetic field … it never gets the chance to cut the magnetic field and cause induction to occur in the solenoid. So there should be no induction. But there is relative motion between the two systems and (also there is NO time varying magnetic field through the moving solenoid,)AND no induced current will be produced ...
so will the induction take place or not...??
if induction does not take place then the principle or relativity goes wrong......
|-
!DaleSpam
|You cannot make a magnet move with the speed of light. It is a physically impossible premise, so you shouldn't be surprised that assuming it leads to contradictions.
|-
!A Dhingra
|... can't it be just a thought experiment like many other paradoxes available....

with that assumption, think about the result.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|Obviously, if you violate the principle of relativity in your question then the answer must be that the principle of relativity is violated. It is just the most basic logic. Non-physical assumptions lead to non-physical conclusions. This says nothing whatsoever about physics, only about your question.
|-
!A Dhingra
|ok........
i agree that the situation is not realistic........
but still i didn't like the fact that one should not think beyond the laws made by humans himself.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|This is elementary logic. If you have any set of axioms (A) which logically imply some result (B) then if your premise is not(B) then you must logically conclude not(A). This is called transposition and is one of the fundamental rules of logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic)

SR logically implies that a solenoid must move slower than light (STL), therefore if you assume that a solenoid can move with the speed of light you must logically conclude that special relativity (SR) is violated. Written in the usual format for logic:
(SR → STL) ↔ (~STL → ~SR)

Whether or not the situation is realistic and whether or not SR is a "law made by humans himself" is actually only a secondary concern. This is primarily an exercise in basic logic. Note that I am agreeing with your OP. Under the stated premise (~STL) you must indeed logically conclude that "the principle of relativity goes wrong" (~SR).
|-
!vector22
|to make the experiment fair you would have to calculate what would happen to the solenoid at half light speed and then go from there.
|-
!netheril96
|If you want to think beyond relativity, invent your own laws of physics. If you want to explain in terms of relativity, then think within relativity.
|-
!A Dhingra
|can you help me go about finding this result......
(considering the magnetic field to be varying with time ...... as it is getting produced ...
|}

How does this discussion support the claim? This source seems to be unsuitable and therefore it should be deleted, and the statement marked again to be unsourced.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:00, 2 January 2012 (EST)

== Previous arguments ==

I'm creating a page [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]], the purpose of this is to ensure that arguments are not repeated by people who find the article, not realising that their objections have already been discussed, and removed as part of a cleanup of the talkpage. The page is NOT a place to make points, but a place to see if your objection has already been made, and save everybody time by reading the responses yourself, and then bringing up the objection only if you have a new point to make. Because the numbers for counterexamples change, the page will not include the number of the counterexample, only the text of it. Although I will try to put them in order. I know that to begin with, many old arguments will not be included, but hopefully it will eventually become a very useful resource for those wishing to make contributions to the page. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:29, 4 January 2012 (EST)

: While I appreciate the positive intent behind this idea, I do fear that it risks making Conservapedia look even sillier in this area than it already does. The problem is the implicit suggestion that this new page is in any way 'definitive'. Given that the issues surrounding Einsteinian Relativity have been discussed across the planet for over a century, and that the results of those discussions are available on-line, in textbooks and elsewhere, then it is unlikely that anyone will give a page on Conservapedia very much credence, particularly if it is seen to support this page, which puts forth views that very few with an understanding of the field share.

: The real problem is that the counterexamples page itself is not a genuine encyclopaedia entry, but the personal fiefdom of one contributor with little understanding of the subject matter and a bee in his bonnet about a spurious connection between Einsteinian Relativity and Moral Relativism. Unfortunately that contributor has administrator privileges, which he finds more effective in making his case than resorting to rational argument. Perhaps it would be better if the counterexamples page itself became an essay page, to make absoultely clear that it presents a personal point of view. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:06, 5 January 2012 (EST)

:: Anyone who finds Conservapedia silly because of this page will not think it is any sillier because of the new page. For many who see this page, it is a joke, and won't think any less of it because of the new page. The problem with turning this page into an essay is that those who support this page believe that it is not merely a page of personal opinion, but factually accurate. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer at the top of the page then? Something like 'this should not be seen as approving of the counterexamples, but as approval of productive discussion concerning the points'. Also, it should be noted that at the moment, every counterexample listed on the new page have outstanding objections to them, which have not been answered. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:05, 5 January 2012 (EST)

::::I hate to go raining on the parade again here, but science is argued by evidence--it is not enough to produce a counter example and highlight the "god of the gaps". There are paradoxical observations under any established paradigm in any field. This does not mean that the entire paradigm is incorrect, simply that there are gaps in the evidence that must be addressed in order to improve extant models. This is the primary reason that trained scientists find this page silly. There are tons of holes in relativity, just as there were massive holes in Darwin's original theory of natural selection (as a biologist, I am far more familiar with how the latter example has been, quite successfully, addressed), the notion that "there are some discrepancies with theory X, therefore goddidit" is an obvious logical fallacy. Rather than poking holes in an outdated model, it is far more scientific to argue in favor of an alternate model using evidence. The central caveat here, and one that must be carefully beaten out of every experiment, is that evidence cannot be approached with the intention of supporting a particular hypothesis--a model must be built around the evidence, not the other way around. That's why scientists laugh at the term "creation science", science is not about hunting for evidence in support of a pre-formed theory, it is about impartially collecting evidence and then letting said evidence speak for itself.

::::Having said that. I must acknowledge that this article is not explicitly (although, it is implied) about advancing one viewpoint over another--it is simply about highlighting perceived inconsistencies in the theory of relativity. By itself, that is not a ridiculous premise at all. However, because this page is more of an editorial than an academic encyclopedia article, this page itself probably should have been classified as an "essay" to begin with. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 14:13, 6 January 2012 (EST)

::::: In my opinion, the article is really a list of anomalies and paradoxes, not counterexamples. The anomalies are observations that need some additional explanation, and that may or may not require an adjustment to relativity. The paradoxes seem like contradictions or contrary to common sense, but have explanations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:58, 7 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If someone thinks that Relativity '''''must''''' be true as a matter of logic, then any and all evidence to the contrary is not going to change that view. "Paradox" might be an appropriate term for ostensible contradictions in logic. But the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 7 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: No, it is the term "true as a matter of logic" that is not suitable for observable science. Perhaps your real complaint is with those who push scientific statements as being true as a matter of logic. If so, I suggest renaming the article to "Counterexamples to Einsteinian thinking". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:09, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::: I think at least one major college teaches Relativity as a course in the math department rather than being listed primarily in the physics department.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science, what are they doing on this page? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 17:26, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::Strictly speaking, all sciences are "observational" sciences; the semantic distinction between observational science and experimental science is arbitrary at best. Even in a tightly-controlled experiment, the goal is still to ''observe'' the outcome of the experiment in order to make some inference about the processes involved. In other words, an experiment is intended as nothing more than an indirect observation of natural phenomena that are not readily directly observable.

::::::::A "paradox", by the most reductive definition, is when the available evidence suggests two contradictory hypotheses. Whereas an "anomaly" is an observation that does not conform to the hypothesis suggested by the previously available evidence. Both of these terms are quite appropriate to use in any scientific or logical context. When a scientist encounters a paradox or an anomaly, it implies that there is a fundamental gap in the theoretical understanding of his or her field. Seeking out evidence to address these gaps allows for scientists to adjust their theoretical models in order to more precisely explain the observed phenomena. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

RudrickBoucher, since we already established that you are not a biologist, shouldn't you say "as someone who likes to pretend to be a biologist". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::Conservative, I have a BS in cell and molecular biology (CMB) from the top undergraduate CMB program in the country, several years of laboratory experience doing developmental biology research, just as many publications (a couple of which, I first-authored), I also have teaching experience in introductory biology (AP biology and college-level intro bio), graduate level course-work in developmental biology, and, as of this coming fall, I will either be a first-year medical student or a developmental biology PhD candidate (I've been accepted into programs for both, but not a combined MD/PhD program just yet). In short, I am allowed to call myself a "biologist" because it is my profession--it may sound pretentious, but it saves on typing. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)
RudrichBoucher, a profession is something one does to earn money and have a net positive cash flow, while students often invest money in education and often have low earnings or debt accumulation. Perhaps you should consider taking an introductory course in finance so you better understand the concepts of cash flow and investment! :) I would also suggest taking a course in ethics at a Christian university so you no longer claim to be a biologist and then retract that claim like you did at this wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 8 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::I was paid for my research and for the teaching. Although, admittedly, not very well for either (as neither science nor teaching pays particularly well). I retracted the claim on the "15 questions" essay only after you had already edited it--in the name of diplomatically avoiding a pointless edit war. Similarly, I referenced my biological inclination above as a gesture of humility, to admit that my background in physics is relatively limited. On that note, what are your credentials? Have you spent seven years meticulously learning a specific field like I have? Have you published any papers? Are you a member of any professional research societies? Admittedly, I have at least another six years of education to go, but I can legitimately claim some level of expertise in my field. I don't say these things to brag, say them to lend credibility to my arguments. Finally, as I've mentioned before, I was raised Catholic and I spent my first two years of college at a Methodist school--where I did have the privilege of taking an ethics class (and I very much enjoyed it). So please, let's cut the ad hominem attacks and focus on the discussion at hand. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:44, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: Of those who credit Einstein for relativity, they often argue that Einstein's approach was superior because he ignored observations and presented relativity as being something that must be true as a matter of logic. The Einstein scholars acknowledge that Lorentz and Poincare had all the relativity formulas before Einstein, but Lorentz and Poincare were not true believers because they conceded that the theory could be disproved by experiment.
::::::: So the case could be made that there is an Einsteinian-relativity-philosophy that is a is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions, that is based on postulates taken on faith, and that ignores experimental evidence. If so, then maybe the page should be explicit about what is being attacked. All real science is based on experimental evidence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::RSchlafly, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that even Einstein considered relativity to be a mathematical approximation. One that precisely, but still somewhat inaccurately, explained the then-available evidence; in a manner similar to the proverbial physicist who, for ease of calculation, treats a horse as a circle. Anybody who has taken more than a year of calculus-based physics (or, even introductory college astronomy), knows the very real limitations of relativity. If anything, these limitations are just as dogmatic as relativity itself. Therefore, the notion that questioning relativity is taboo in intellectual circles (an underlying premise of this page) is patently ridiculous. Poking holes in relativity, and then seeking to explain them, has been one of the great ongoing projects in physics for the past seventy years. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::: I agree that questioning relativity is not taboo. The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics was for observations that caused a modification of general relativity. The biggest physics story of the year was the Italian claim that neutrinos go faster than light, contrary to relativity. Physicists often talk about replacing relativity with some unified field theory or quantum theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:51, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::::: That makes me wonder why there isn't a "Counterexamples to Quantum Mechanics" page here as well. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:11, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::::: There are a lot of anomalies and paradoxes in quantum mechanics also. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)

== A few more things ==

All right, more problems with this article:

<blockquote>
15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
 18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
 24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
</blockquote>
15: General relativity ''does not predict gravitons!'' Gravitons are massless spin-two particles predicted by QFT that lead to linear GR. (Though the spirit is different; in QFT, the h's--the metric perturbations--are a tensor representing field strength on a background Minkowski spacetime. In GR these represent curvature in spacetime.)
 18: Untrue--Consider the Dirac equation. It predicted spin, which was not predicted by Schrodinger theory. It also predicted negative energy states (antiparticles), and QFT has been fundamental to particle physics.
 24: Yet another horrible misunderstanding. Consider an ideal gas with N particles. Assume the total number of particles is conserved (it obviously doesn't have to be, but this is an idealized case). First of all, Newtonian gravity also predicts that a star will contract to a point without hydrostatic pressure--due to their mutual gravitational attraction. Should we start a "counterexamples to gravity" page? You've forgotten one thing: ''there's a term in the expression for the entropy that involves thermal energy!!!'' In other words (roughly speaking) the gas "warms up" so that the second law of thermodynamics is not violated. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:43, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::Very well said! While I'm in a commenting-frenzy, I'd like to add to your points.

::'''Re: #15.''' It's not a waste of time or money to reject a hypothesis. To quote Enrico Fermi, "If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery."

::'''Re: #18.''' Relativity HAS led to other [http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/relativity/discoveries-relativity-made-possible.htm|insights].

::'''Re: #24.''' The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. In the case of stellar black hole formation, gravitational pressure must exceed the sum of the thermal pressure, supplied by ongoing fusion in the stellar core, and the core degeneracy pressure, provided courtesy of the Pauli exclusion principle. Achieving this condition is, necessarily, a very violent event, complete with giant explosions, gamma ray bursts, and spewing jets of super-heated gas. When considering the entirety of the system giving rise to a black hole, and not just the resulting black hole itself, entropy certainly ''does'' increase. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::Hello! Thanks for the comments. And sorry about #24, like I said, the model I gave is slightly idealized b/c I haven't studied the subject in detail. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 07:58, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::No problem, I was in a bit of a commenting frenzy anyway. I'm guessing, because you referred to the ideal gas law, that you have some chemistry background?

:::::Also, I've had students throw the second law of thermodynamics at me when I'm trying to explain evolution. The Earth's surface isn't a closed system either because it's constantly receiving energy from the sun--so the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable there as well. The only truly closed system that I can think of is in Washington...and, yes, entropy there is ''always'' increasing! --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)

::::::Actually, I'm terrible at chemistry! My background is in physics and math. You talk about ideal gasses in any physics class where you discuss thermodynamics. But yeah, that's one of the classical misunderstandings among creationists. One thing I saw suggested that next time someone brings it up, ask them about the other laws of thermodynamics. What I also like about the second law of thermodynamics argument is that they don't seem to understand what entropy ''is'' and ''why'' it increases. So yeah, next time someone brings it up ask them about those things. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:18, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::Can I please delete these "counterexamples"? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:32, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::I say go for it. You've justified why they should be deleted and your justification has met with no objection. If somebody wishes to restore them, they are welcome to object here.

::::::::As an aside, there does seem to be a disproportionate number of math and physics types on here. It is interesting how the life sciences tend to be predominantly liberal, whereas there's a more even distribution of political ideology in the physical sciences. There are conservative biologists (my old PI, for example), but they are very few and very far between. Knowledge of evolution does not seem to be a factor here, because understanding / acceptance of evolution is nearly universal in all of the sciences. In biology, there is a (seemingly true, in my experience) stereotypical "personality" in each of the sub-disciplines; to reference other fields, the age-old dichotomy between chemists and chemical engineers seems to mostly hold true. I have always wondered if the "personality" of the fields would lead to the observed political differences, or if maybe there is something deeper.

::::::::Because I am afraid that my above observation may be taken grossly out of context, I must add to it the disclaimer that I am not in any way suggesting "indoctrination" of students in one field versus another (or making some other similarly fatuous insinuation). I am simply making an observation, and speculating on its possible cause. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:25, 12 January 2012 (EST)

These counterexamples are not adequately rebutted above:

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

:If Relativists are not even going to accept the results of experiments that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then they '''''are''''' a waste of money.

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

:If you can give examples in your own words, then please do.

24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

:This statement is true also. The dramatic decrease in entropy predicted by Relativity is contrary to the Second Law. No known mechanism offsets that decrease.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::'''re: 15.''' The existence of gravitons was hypothesized in an attempt to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics. General relativity, by itself, does not predict the existence of gravitons. Furthermore, money spent testing a hypothesis that is ultimately not supported is not "wasted" (otherwise, I'd be out of a job)--the knowledge gained in testing the hypothesis allows a better hypothesis to be formulated.

:::'''re: 18.''' General relativity correctly predicted gravitational lensing, the existence of black holes, and the accelerating expansion of the universe. Additionally (and this is the first example that I can come up with off of the top of my head, RSchlafly probably knows a few better ones), relativistic effects must be compensated for to maximize the accuracy of satellite-based GPS systems.

:::'''re: 24.''' Black hole formation results in a net increase in entropy when considering the system as a whole. If you were to consider just the mass of the resultant black hole as a closed system, the degeneracy forces outweigh the net gravitational force significantly enough to prevent collapse into a schwarzschild radius. In just overcoming this by itself (as theoretically happens in super-massive black holes), there would be a massive output of emitted particles (radiation), which would still result in a net increase in the entropy of the system.

:::These counterexamples are not valid. Plain and simple. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 01:10, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::: General relativity did not predict the accelerating expansion of the universe. It predicted that the expansion would be slowing. Most physicists say that the GR equations must be modified to accommodate the accelerating expansion.
:::: I don't get the entropy argument. I always assumed that a black hole would have all the entropy of the collapsing star and matter falling in. Is there a source for saying that black holes have low entropy? As the footnote says, Hawking has an explanation. Is there something wrong with that explanation? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:29, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::::Um...I ''did'' address all your concerns, Andy....

<blockquote>
These counterexamples are not adequately rebutted above:

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

:If Relativists are not even going to accept the results of experiments that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then they '''''are''''' a waste of money. '''Wait, gravitons are predicted by GR?! Please send me a link to the derivation!!!'''

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

:If you can give examples in your own words, then please do. '''I did!!!! Not to be rude, but did you see what I wrote above? Dirac equation! Spin! Antiparticles! Quantum Field theory! Particle physics! The Standard Model!'''

24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

:This statement is true also. The dramatic decrease in entropy predicted by Relativity is contrary to the Second Law. No known mechanism offsets that decrease '''Yes, yes, yes, temperature increase is unknown to physics!'''
</blockquote>

:::::(Again I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just wondering if there was a glitch or something b/c, as I said, these were all addressed above.) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:48, 13 January 2012 (EST)

The footnote for #8 says that the calculations are "complicated or contrived", and that the fundamental formula was "conformed" to match the observed perihelion precession. No one doubts that the derivation is complicated. But "conformed" seems to say that something was "tweaked" to match the precession. The formula is complicated to solve but simple to write: <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>. There's nothing in it that can be "tweaked"--not 8, not pi, and not K (Newton's constant of gravitation.)[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:08, 21 January 2012 (EST)
:Yep, this is also confusing to me. Does Andy Schlafly know relativity? As you said, nothing can be tweaked in that equation (to "conform" to whatever events). The tensor that represents curvature has to have divergence 0, so that energy-momentum is locally conserved, and the 8*pi*G is determined from the fact that it has to reduce to Newtonian gravity in the weak-field limit. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:47, 23 January 2012 (EST)

== Recent reversion ==

[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], while your recent change did keep the link to the rebuttal page, don't you think it would only be fair to also keep the note that the page is controversial? Regardless who is actually right or wrong, I don't think it would be fair to anyone reading 'The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia' for them to pick up the impression that the ideas on this page are not very widely disputed. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 16:05, 29 January 2012 (EST)

: The whole article is a list of relativity controversies. It says at the top that it is contrary to what liberals promote. Isn't that clear? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:04, 29 January 2012 (EST)
:: The point is, I think, that the very idea that there is a liberal/conservative division on this is itself controversial. Personally, I have not seen the issue raised anywhere except on Conservapedia, and even then only by a very small subset of contributors.
:: On a broader point, if opposing liberal points of view is, by definition, controversial, and given that such opposition is the ''raison d'être'' of Conservapedia, wouldn't a better tagline be "The Controversial Encyclopaedia"?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)

: It's a common tactic for the media to label someone they don't like as "controversial". But does anyone ever hear a liberal theory or politician called "controversial"? Was [[Ted Kennedy]] ever called "controversial" by the media?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 29 January 2012 (EST)

::Does this make [[string theory]] conservative, as it is often labeled ''controversial''? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:::No, I didn't suggest that ''everything'' the media disparages as "controversial" is conservative. String theory is a challenge to liberal orthodoxy from the Left.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:18, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::Just to nail this down [[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], do you or do you not think that this page is controversial?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::::Also, your question about Ted Kennedy looks rhetorical with the implied answer of 'no', and yet the answer is very clearly 'yes'. Googling "Ted Kennedy" and "controversial" gives 6.4 million hits. Obviously that doesn't mean the term is being applied to him in all cases, but in many of them (e.g. http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/us/2009/08/26/ted-kennedy-controversy#slide=1) it clearly is. Can you clarify the point you were making about him?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:27, 30 January 2012 (EST)

::: The term "controversial" is not a good term for [[string theory]]. The major aspects are not disputed. A subject is not conservative just because some journalist mislabels it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:14, 31 January 2012 (EST)

::::::That's the problem with science journalism these days. It overstates the implications of a lot of findings, oversimplifies key concepts, and often fails to accurately convey consensus opinions in a particular field. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 17:35, 31 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Just wanted to add to this: I have never seen GR disputed anywhere but here. (Save for quantum gravity, of course). [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:28, 2 February 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos do not travel faster than light ==
The same lab that originally broke the story has confirmed a flaw in their experiment. Dr. Sandro Centro stated, ''"In fact I was a little sceptical since the beginning, now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos.[...]I think they were a little bit in a hurry to publish something that was astonishing, and at the end of the day it was a wrong measurement."[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682]

: I hope he did not mean to say that, because neutrinos going at the speed of light would still contradict relativity (or other experiments). Neutrinos have mass, and must go slower than the speed of light. The article has a better statement: "they find that the neutrinos do travel at the same speed as light, within a small error range." [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:02, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

I took the part out - again: have a look at the [http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html updated press-release] by CERN regarding the experiment:
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:48, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

:The updates and corrections for the benefit of Relativists are less than persuasive. Is anyone claiming quote above ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is inaccurate? Note, by the way, that the CERN experiment is not the only one that suggested neutrinos can travel at least as fast as the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:57, 17 March 2012 (EDT)
::Andy, perhaps you could write to either the ICARUS Collaboration or CERN seeking clarification of their results. After reading the actual paper[http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.3433.pdf](not the press release), it seems that the team is quite confident that their latest results are in complete agreement with Relativity. "''Based on seven neutrino events, our result is in excellent agreement with Lorentz dependent velocities of neutrinos and of light. Neutrinos and GPS measurements are found to be sharply coincident in time within an uncertainty of a few nanoseconds, in disagreement with the superluminal result reported by the OPERA Collaboration.''" Yet you contend that the results from the very same experiment actually ''disproves'' Relativity. In this instance I simply think you are wrong. But who's to say that my interpretation of an article is any more accurate than yours? Obviously, we both can't be right. I think there must be a better way to settle this matter than combing through press releases. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 13:33, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The new, updated claims seem more like [[political correctness]] than real science. Does the paper compare the updated results to the independent prior findings, by another experiment, that also suggested that neutrino speeds conflict with the politicized desires of Relativists?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:55, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Political correctness? Come off it Schlafly. You do realize that there's far more fame and glory to be had for a physicist to prove GR wrong than there is to add to the growing list of supporting evidence? You do understand that, right? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 01:57, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::The opposite is obviously true. Those who even question the [[Theory of Relativity]] are risking their careers. No grad student can expect to receive a doctorate if he questions relativity; no associate professor can expect to receive tenure if he does likewise; and no tenured professor will ever win the [[Nobel Prize]] for questioning relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:31, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::: Yep, and no one will ever win a Nobel prize for questioning whether the Earth is round either. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 18:29, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::: There aren't 39 counterexamples to the spherical shape of the Earth. But if a doctoral candidate, tenure-track professor, or [[Nobel Prize]] wannabe repeats one of the 39 [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], then he's risking retaliation against his career by liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:52, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::: There aren't 39 counterexamples to relativity and [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity|this page]] documents in detail what's wrong with each alleged "counterexample". The acceptance of relativity has to do with the theory passing extensive experimental scrutiny and nothing to do with "liberals". --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 19:29, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly said: "''No grad student can expect to receive a doctorate if he questions relativity[...]''" Yes. If a doctoral candidate whipped out almost any of your "counterexamples", in anything short of a joking fashion, they most likely would be signaling the end of their academic carrier. Why? It's simple. Advanced degrees are awarded to students who have shown a mastery of their particular field of study. Presenting this list of counterexamples in a doctoral thesis would only go towards illustrating that the student does not have a thorough understanding of SR or GR and thus should not offered a degree. No political correctness. No liberal conspiracy.
 Aschlafly went on to say: "''...no tenured professor will ever win the [[Nobel Prize]] for questioning relativity.''" You are 100% correct on this one. Why? Because anybody can sit around questioning anything. It doesn't take any particular knowledge, skill, education, or keen intellect to lob endless unanswerable questions. Otherwise Glenn Beck would have won the Nobel (and every other prize) by now. No, the proverbial (and many times literal) money is in ''answering'' questions. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 14:09, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I'm in the process of getting a debate under way on 'GPS and Relativity' over at [[Talk:Theory of relativity]]. A this stage I would rather just have some references, especially any which show that Relativity is not used in the GPS system. Once we have some good references to look at, possibly in a week or two, we can then consider the evidence. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 08:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

== Biblical Examples ==

You can't really use the Bible to prove that the Bible is correct. While I'm not disputing the Bible, that doesn't change the fact that it's a tautological argument. I could easily "prove" relativity by saying "Einstein said such-and-such" and conclude therefore that such-and-such is true. But in reality, that wouldn't prove anything because I'd essentially be saying "Einstein said this, therefore what Einstein said is correct". It's no different for the Bible. Even if we were to argue that the Bible represents absolute truth, keep in mind that our source for that is the Bible itself, so regardless of what you believe, it's still a tautological argument. I'm not going to remove the Biblical examples without discussion, but I don't think they belong here. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:31, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

== The roundness of the sun ==

I'm not completely familiar with the general and special theories of relativity, but what do they have to say about the roundness of the sun? [[User:DennyR|DennyR]] 12:41, 18 August 2012 (EDT)
:There is a relationship, though it's somewhat roundabout. See item # 5 in the rebuttal page. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:54, 18 August 2012 (EDT)

Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-08-18T21:52:51Z

JudyJ: oblateness

This is intended as an article rebutting the points in the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article. That article's talk page has proven to be less than satisfactory for this purpose, because it gets archived, and much of its material has degenerated into personal disputes. We believe that the two sides of the issue are better handled in two articles—this one and [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], rather than a talk page.

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

#''Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found. Sound like global warming?''
#:True, the ''direct'' searches for gravitational waves have not yet yielded any clear results, though indirect observations have been made (the Hulse/Taylor observations.) Before people dismiss indirect observations, recall that no one has ever seen an electron.
#:The Earth-based LIGO detectors have, so far, not detected any unambiguous gravitational wave signatures from such events as a black-hole merger. It is barely sensitive enough to find such things in the Milky Way or very nearby galaxies. It is being upgraded in a plan that should complete in 2014. It is hoped that, after the upgrade, it will be able to see these events clearly and unambiguously.
#:The space-based LISA detectors have not been built yet, and the original proposal has been scrapped because of budgetary problems. A new version, called "eLISA" has been proposed, and should be sensitive to events as far away as redshift 15.
#:Whether these experiments are a good use of money is another question, one that has no bearing on whether relativity is correct.
#::The objection has been raised that the experiments should not have been funded if scientists were going to ignore negative results.
#:::The results are only partly negative. The scientists knew all along that a certain amount of luck would be involved in finding a sufficiently strong signal within the time frame of the experiment. The failure so far does not mean that black-hole mergers do not emit gravitational waves; just that they haven't been lucky enough to find them. They will continue to search.
#:This has nothing to do with global warming.
#''The orbital radius of the Moon's orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts''.
#:This could be a counterexample to both GR and Newtonian gravity--in both, the radius is defined in terms of conserved quantities.
#::The objection has been raised that this would still be a counterexample to Relativity.
#:::Yes, if it were actually true that the Moon's orbit is undergoing some kind of anomalous perturbation, it would indeed be a disproof of Relativity, Newtonian mechanics, and, in fact, all of physics since Galileo.
#''The Pioneer anomaly.''
#:The "Pioneer anomaly" is the deviation in the motion of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft from their predicted motion, at the distance of Saturn and beyond. It should be noted that the anomaly is about 1000 times greater than the difference between the classical Newtonian prediction and the prediction of relativity, so this is not a problem with relativity ''per se''; it is more general than that.
#:Calculating the force caused by heat (that is, miniscule amounts of infrared radiation) from the radioactive power source was one of the first effects that was examined. The anomaly arose when this and other known effects could not fully explain the deviation.
#:The problem is believed to have been solved by taking into account the reflection of the radiation from the power source off of the back of the antenna dish<ref>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/</ref>. The solution is sometimes described as an application of "Phong shading", a technique of computer graphics that is now considered imprecise. But Phong shading itself is not what is important. The "ray tracing" computer graphics technique that underlies Phong shading was what inspired the scientists to take reflection into account.
#''the solar flattening is ... too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation.''
#:This observation is interesting, but the predictions of oblateness come from analysis of fluid mechanics; relativity is not involved, and the cited paper makes no mention of relativity.
#:
#:We expect a very large rotating body to show oblateness according to well-known principles involving centrifugal force. This is particularly easy to observe with Jupiter, though the other planets, including Earth, show it too. Scientists do not know why the Sun exhibits nearly zero oblateness, but relativity is not believed to be the cause.
#:
#:Now it happens that there ''is'' a connection between solar oblateness and the calculation of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and that involves General Relativity. When checking the observed precession against the effect predicted by Relativity, one needs to subtract the effect of solar oblateness, along with the other effects, such as equinoctial precession and the gravitational effects of other planets. The effect of solar oblateness is a mere .0254 arcseconds per century, insignificant in comparison with precession (about 5500) and other planets' gravity (about 550). The figure of .0254 was calculated based on what fluid dynamics predicted, and was subtracted in the figures quoted below in item #9. When that tiny effect is removed, the error bars still overlap that for the GR prediction.
#''Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity. The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement''.
#:This is an interesting observation. The world's best scientific minds are looking into it. That relativity is incorrect is not being taken seriously as a possible explanation.
#:'''Update:''' The problem seems to have been caused by a faulty cable connection between a computer and a GPS unit. When the connection was repaired, the travel time increased by 60 nanoseconds, which had been the amount of the anomaly <ref>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/22/technology-faster-than-light-neutrinos.html</ref> <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/22/loose-wire-led-to-stunning-faster-than-light-particle-finding/?intcmp=features</ref>.
#:The objection has been raised that a recent news report from the BBC ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is also contradictory, since neutrinos have mass and are therefore forbidden by relativity to travel at exactly the speed of light. Since the neutrino energies were 17GeV, and the current estimate for the neutrino mass is about 0.25eV, the deviation from the speed of light would be about 1 part in 1022. This means that the neutrinos would arrive at the detector about .26x10-24 seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is one quarter of a billionth of a femtosecond, or about .26x10-15 of a nanosecond. The accuracy of the GPS units and cesium clocks used in the measurement is greater than a nanosecond, so the discrepancy cannot possibly be detected. It is unfortunate that the claim "the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos" was taken so literally.
#''Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").''
#:This may be another case of the Pioneer anomaly, or it may be something else. However, it is very unlikely that it shows that relativity is wrong and Newtonian mechanics is correct.
#''Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "dark matter" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it due to the acceleration of various parts of galaxies that accelerated funny that led to dark matter (based on simple Newtonian dynamics)?
#''The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "dark energy" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:This is the dark energy/cosmological constant argument. The cosmological constant was added by Einstein after he discovered that his field equations (<math>\mathbf{G}=8\pi \mathbf{T}</math>) predicted that the universe was expanding, contradicting his firm philosophical belief in a static universe. So he inserted <math>\Lambda \mathbf{g}</math> to the LHS so that it would predict a static universe. A few years later, Hubble showed the universe to be expanding, and Einstein called the cosmological constant the worst mistake of his career. So, it sort of had a bad reputation, and people didn't want to seriously consider it, until recent observations have shown the universe's expansion to be accelerating forced them to do so. It could have had a very different history. Einstein could have had that term in the EFE's from the start, and pointed out that it would determine if the universe's expansion was accelerating (or not expanding at all!) and it would take further observation to determine its value.
#''Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.''
#:A footnote goes on to say that "In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01) ..."
#:Considering only the ''anomalous'' precession, that is, the precession that remains after all known other factors (other planets and asteroids, solar oblateness) have been accounted for, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values are:
#::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
#::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
#::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
#::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
#::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijpers 2008]]
#:These error bars, and that of the relativity formula, all overlap.
#:The formula for mechanics under general relativity is complicated, but it is not contrived or conformed. "Conformed" suggests that it was somehow adjusted or "tweaked" to match the 42.98 figure. The formula is
#:::<math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>
#:To begin to explain the formula, Newton's law of gravity, combining F = ma and <math>F = \frac{KMm}{r^2}\,</math>, is
#::<math>a = \frac{KM}{r^2}\,</math>
#:In Einstein's equation, <math>T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "stress-energy tensor", and <math>8 \pi T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> gives the density of the Sun, taking the place of <math>\frac{M}{r^2}\,</math>. <math>G_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "Einstein curvature tensor", and says how spacetime curves to create an apparent gravitational acceleration.
#:There is nothing to tweak to get a value of 42.98 arcseconds. 8 is 8. <math>\pi\,</math> is <math>\pi\,</math>. K is Newton's constant of gravitation in both formulas.
#:
#::::The above discussion notwithstanding, more sophisticated technology has measured a precession of 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01, which disproves the prediction of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Notice how publication of data stopped two decades ago when the observations diverged from the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
#:Measurements of planetary motion are now calculated relative to the "International Celestial Reference Frame" (ICFR), replacing the older, and much less accurate "equinoctial" frame. The older measurements got a value of about 5600 arcseconds/century for the precession of Mercury, nearly all of which (5025 arcseconds) was because of the rotation of the "equinoctial" frame. The ICFR frame removes that source of uncertainty, and, with the very accurate radar measurements conducted by NASA between 1987 and 1997<ref>[http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf]</ref>, gets a value of 574.10±0.65 arcseconds observed, in good agreement with the predicted 574.64±0.69 value.
#:
#:The ICFR is described in [http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Publications/TechnicalNotes/tn32.html this] document, dated 2003.
#''The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.''
#:The formulas for velocity, momentum, and mass can in fact be written in such a way that they appear to have discontinuities, just as the tangent function has discontinuities while the underlying sine and cosine functions do not. But they can also be written in a form that does not show discontinuities.
#:All particles, with or without mass, can have any value of momentum. The formula for the velocity of a particle, in terms of its mass and momentum, is
#:::<math>v = \frac{pc}{\sqrt{m^2c^2+p^2}}</math>
#:For a particle with mass, this means that momentum of zero gives a speed of zero, and, as the momentum approaches infinity, the speed approaches c.
#:For a massless particle, the speed is always c.
#''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''
#:The simple answer is, unequivocally, that it acts on the 'relativistic' mass. The question seems to relate to a simple misunderstanding of Special Relativity. Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance in the body's mass with regard to the direction of the force. Thus to a given observer, a force in any direction will operate on the same mass. However, to a different observer, this mass may be different, although still the constant with regard to the direction of the force.
#''The observed lack of curvature in overall space.''
#:What? Is has been observed
#''The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.''
#:We're still working on a quantum theory of gravity; this isn't so much a counter-example as saying that (classical)GR isn't valid in that domain.
#''The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.''
#:Special Relativity only forbids the transmission of matter, energy or information at a speed faster than light. There are plenty of other things that can move faster than light. Consider a laser on Earth which is rotating on a pivot, whose light shines onto the hull of a satellite 200,000Km away (2e8 metres). If the laser rotates at a sedentary one revolution ever four seconds, the speed of the laser beam's tip crossing the satellite's hull is 3.14e8 metres per second - faster than the speed of light. However, this is not a transfer of information. Any information is travelling from Earth to the satellite, obeying the universal speed limit. Similarly, the only information that can be transmitted by the quantum entanglement of two particles is from the originator of the particles to the two observers, not from one observer to another. Faster than light transmission of information using quantum entanglement has never been observed, nor has even conceived how such a mechanism might work.<ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612</ref>
#''The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.''
#:As an argument against relativity, there are two reasons that this is invalid (beyond simply questioning the evidential validity of the Bible):
#::a) These passages clearly refer to a [[miracle]]. A miracle, being an act of God, is not subject to the laws of physics.
#::b) It is highly debatable as to whether the verses do describe [[action-at-a-distance]] in the sense of an action whose influence travels instantaneously (and therefore faster than the speed of light). This itself may be argued from two viewpoints:
#:::i) When reading these passages, as with consideration of many apparent relativistic anomalies, the true picture of causality must be considered. In each case there are two apparent events. Event A - Jesus does something (says 'thy son liveth', says 'be it unto thee even as thou wilt', or Christ's spirit leaving His body). Event B - the apparent result (the son lives, her daughter is made whole, or the earth quakes). However, it is not the case in any of these examples that A causes B. Both A and B are caused by a third event. In the first two cases it is Christ's thought that causes the miracle and that causes His lips to announce the miracle. This thought would have occurred fractions of a second before either event, and is the non-instantaneous cause of both. In the last case it is Christ's death that is the precursor and cause of both events.
#:::ii) It must be considered that at the time when the Gospels were written, neither their authors nor their intended readers were aware of any concept of the speed of light and were unable to measure the billionths of a second difference between the events being considered here. Thus just as in modern parlance the phrase 'at the same moment' has a tolerance of milliseconds (unless specifically couched to mean otherwise) so do the various terms used by the Evangelists. They would never have considered it an important issue, and would therefore not have worried about the degree of precision.
#::::Miracles do not violate logic, and the [[Theory of Relativity]] asserts that these [[action-at-a-distance]] miracles described in the [[Gospels]] are impossible. No plausible medium for these miracles, even if they were non-instantaneous action-at-a-distance, has been proposed.
#''The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.''
#:Gravitons are a prediction of [[Quantum Theory]], not of relativity, although the concept is an extension of the relativistic idea that forces take a finite time to be transmitted over a distance.
#:No one expects to observe gravitons. Calculations show that it is well-nigh impossible with any conceivable detector that we could build. No one is designing, funding, or building any apparatus to search for gravitons.
#:Now it happens that theoretical physicists discuss and speculate on the existence and nature of such things as gravitons as part of their theoretical work. Some of these discussions take place among scientists who receive their salaries from various government agencies that are funded by taxpayers. Whether all of the things that scientists think about, talk about, and write about constitute a good use of money is not for us to say.
#''Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do not experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity''
#:Whilst this observation is unconfirmed, if true it would still not invalidate relativity. Many things may vary with position in space, and relativity does not deny this. There is no suggestion that the fine-structure constant is different at the same point in space for observers in different non-inertial frame, as the 'counterexample' implies.
#''The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a black hole. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."''
#:When physicists encounter something puzzling, their first reaction is usually not to assume that it shows that relativity is wrong. In fact the cited article never mentions relativity at all. It is about "magnetars", a type of neutron star about which very little is known, other than their extremely strong magnetic fields.
#:Many scientific discoveries have arisen from observations that were puzzling at first. Edwin Hubble's observations of galactic redshift led to the realization that the universe is expanding isotropically. The observations by Jocelyn Bell and Antony Hewish, of periodic pulsation in the radio emissions of a star, were so puzzling at first that they seemed to suggest transmissions from intelligent extraterrestrials. They had actually discovered pulsars. When Carl Anderson saw unexplained particle tracks in a cloud chamber, he had discovered antiparticles.
#:None of these people assumed that the explanation for these observations was that relativity was wrong. They were all astrophysicists and were quite familiar with relativity. In fact, Anderson's antiparticles had been predicted by the Dirac equation, a synthesis of special relativity and the Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics, from a few years earlier.
#''The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.''
#:It is utterly baffling how anyone could make such an assertion. The insights from relativity are multitudinous. Relativity forms the basis for astronomy, cosmology, electrodynamics, and many other fields. The interconnection between the electric and magnetic forces is now seen to be a straightforward consequence of relativity. Relativity combined with quantum mechanics are the basis of all of contemporary physics.
#:The Dirac equation, which gives rise to antiparticles and the theory of spinors, was an early example of introducing relatitivity into the Schrödinger equation.
#:More generally, special relativity was combined with quantum theory to produce [[quantum field theory]] (QFT). An example of a QFT is [[quantum electrodynamics]], the most precise theory in physics. Furthermore, string theory is Lorentz invariant and produces general relativity in the low energy limit.
#''The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.''
#:We are baffled that anyone would connect this problem with relativity. The non-relativity principle of conservation of mass has been known, in general, for hundreds of years, going back to the time of the alchemists, and has been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. The principle of conservation of energy has also been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. Relativity simply generalizes this to a principle of both together, with even greater precision. So, in principle, it is recognized that the mass of the standard kilogram could change if an energy transfer took place. But no combustion, corrosion, or nuclear decay is suspected of having taken place. In any case, the amount of energy that would have to have been released is 1.25 megawatt-hours, which would certainly have been noticed.
#:Relativity does not promise uniformity of the universe any more strongly than classical physics did. The apparent change in mass of the standard kilogram is simply a mystery.
#''The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 22, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about speculation that the constant "alpha" (see item 16 above) may not be constant. It might have decreased, by 45 parts per billion, as recently (in cosmic time) as two billion years ago, based on data from the Oklo "natural fission reactor". Other measurements have been made of alpha at earlier times, such as measurement of light from distant quasars. These measurements suggest that alpha has increased by a few parts per 105 in 12 billion years.
#:There is plenty of literature on theories about change in alpha, and some of it indicates that this may be due to change in the speed of light. Specifically, the Oklo data may suggest that the speed of light may have been increasing slightly. (This is the opposite of the direction of change claimed by fundamentalists, but is much smaller in any case.)
#:Speculation on a different speed of light in the past may relate to theories of "cosmic inflation", which touches on the question of why the Cosmic Background Radiation is so nearly isotropic, which indicates a near-uniformity of temperature, which requires inflation or some equivalent mechanism.
#:None of the scientists working in this area seem to doubt the fundamental correctness of relativity.
#''"According to Einstein's view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 22, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about a very recent and exciting development in fundamental theoretical physics, generally called the "holographic principle". This proposes that our perceived 3-dimensional space actually arises from a "hologram" on a 2-dimensional space. Much has been written about this recently, including the best-selling book ''The Hidden Reality'' by Brian Greene. This hologram manifests itself in the "foamlike" ripples of spacetime, at the scale of the Planck length, which is so small that there seemed to be no way to detect it directly.
#:But it seems that some "inexplicable static" in the results of another unrelated experiment, searching for gravitational waves, may be the first hints of the holographic nature of space. If so, this is a lucky and serendipitous result.
#:Serendipitous scientific discoveries have been made many times, as when Henri Becquerel put a photographic plate in a dark drawer because the weather was cloudy, and thereby discovered radioactivity.
#:That the "foamlike" nature of space at short distances is contrary to the continuous nature presumed by classical mechanics and relativity has been known for some time. This is the problem that quantum gravity seeks to solve.
#''"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don't gel."''
#:Quoting things without explaining the context is often a bad idea, and the indicated item is a good example of this. It gives no hint of what the article from which the quote was taken is about. The article is about one scientist's contribution to the problem of unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. The scientist, Petr HoYava of Berkeley, has come up with an approach that he says eliminates the infinities that have plagued other unification attempts.
#:The two quoted sentences are HoYava's ''statement of the problem''. So it comes as no surprise that he says that there is a conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics. The very next paragraph begins:
#::The solution, HoYava says, is to snip threads that bind time to space at very high energies .... At low energies, general relativity emerges from this underlying framework ..."
#:It is well known that, just as classical mechanics emerges from quantum mechanics at non-microscopic scales, and classical mechanics emerges from relativity at low speeds, both relativity and quantum mechanics should emerge from the Grand Unified Theory (whatever that turns out to be) at the appropriate scales.
#''The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.''
#:The topology of wormholes is an interesting topic, widely discussed among theoretical physicists and mathematicians. There is much speculation about what they would be like (if they could exist at all under quantum gravity), and what kind of "cosmic censorship" or "chronology protection" theorems might make practical time travel impossible. The nature of these theorems seems to be intertwined with theories of quantum gravity and "grand unification", so the exact form of the "cosmic censorship", if it exists, can't be known until quantum mechanics and relativistic geometry are unified. It is an exciting field of research. No one believes that the "cosmic censorship" will take the form of relativity not being a true non-quantum approximation to reality.
#''The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.''
#:Since the 70's much work has been done on the subject of black hole thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973CMaPh..31..161B</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9307035v1.pdf</ref>, most notably by the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge [[Stephen Hawking]]. When quantum field theory is added to the analysis of black holes it is found that they do not possess "low entropy" (quite the opposite, in fact) and are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...7.2333B</ref>. The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article has labelled this work in a footnote as "[c]ontrived explanations", with no explanation for this characterization given.
#''Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.''
#:Please read the cited paper carefully. It is a survey of their observations over a 30 year period. They point out that their data matches general relativity to within 0.2 percent, and is now down in the "noise" of other effects, such as lack of accurate knowledge of just how far away the pulsars are, and lack of accurate knowledge of galactic constants. As they say in the abstract, "tighter bounds will be difficult to obtain." The paper, written in 2004, also notes that, because the pulsar beams are slowly tilting out of the line of sight to Earth, "A core component [of the emission] is quite prominent in the data taken in 1980-81, but it faded very significantly between 1980 and 1998 and was nearly gone by 2003."
#:That is why they are not releasing further data. 30 years is a fairly long time to watch a pair of pulsars. They're not doing the experiment any more—it did its job, and it's finished. No one drops cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa any more either.
#:The data are not diverging from the predictions.
#''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.''
#:The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses general relativity to achieve greater accuracy<ref>http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html</ref>.
#:In fact, relativity is what makes the magnetic force necessary. The magnetic force is used in, among other things, electric motors and generators.
#:Even if it were the case that no practical applications have come from relativity, that is irrelevant. The validity of a theory is not based on the creation of useful devices. It is based on its ability to accurately predict the results of an experiment. Relativity "has held up under extensive experimental scrutiny" <ref>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/</ref>.
#:If scientific theories were judged by their application in useful devices, the following Nobel-worthy theories would be rejected:
#::cosmic inflation
#::parity violation in the weak force
#::the "standard model", with strange/charm/top/bottom/mu/tau
#::the Chandrasekhar limit for white dwarf stars
#''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.''
#:The rules for calculating inertia and other questions of mechanics are well known. The inertia, that is, the way that a force affects an object's momentum, is well known. Hundreds of physics textbooks discuss this in great detail, in terms of the Lorentz transform and the concepts of the force and momentum 4-vectors. The "inertia" comes from what is now called the mass, which used to be called the "rest mass". Archaic treatments formulated this in terms of the "relativistic mass", which was different. The mass is a scalar, and has no direction. The formulas for calculating the motion in terms of forces, in the direction of motion or transverse to it, are well known.
#''Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.''
#:This seems to be another basic misunderstanding of relativity, from someone who gave up halfway through the textbook. Newtonian momentum (p = mv) does certainly indicate that a body with zero mass (''m'') must have zero momentum whatever its velocity (''v''). However, the relativistic equation for momentum is:
#::<math> p = \gamma m_0v\,</math>
#:where ''m''0 is the [[invariant mass|rest mass]] of the object and ''?'' is the Lorentz factor, given by
#::<math>\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2}}\,,</math>
#:where ''c'' is the [[speed of light]].
#:For the case of a photon, where rest mass is zero and ''v'' is equal to ''c'', this gives ''p'' as zero divided by zero - an undetermined value.
#:However, with the substitution of the famous E=mc2, where E is the energy of the body, the momentum equation can be rearranged to:
#::<math>pc = \sqrt{E^2 - m_0^2c^4}</math>
#:With a photon of zero rest mass, this gives:
#::<math>p = E/c\,</math>
#:Finally, substituting Planck's Equation for the energy of a photon <math>E = hf\,</math> where ''h'' is [[Planck's Constant]] and ''f'' is the frequency of the photon, we get the familiar (and experimentally demonstrated) value for a photon's momentum of:
#::<math>p = hf/c = h/\lambda\,</math>
#:where <math>\lambda</math> is the photon's wavelength.<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html</ref>
#''Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.''
#:There are no "conditions of a conservative field". A conservative field is one that has a curl of zero. Perhaps what was meant was that the gravitational field around the Sun, under Newtonian mechanics, is conservative. This is true because it is the gradient of an inverse-square scalar field, and all gradients have a curl of zero. Under relativity, the curl is also zero, due to the Bianchi identity and the symmetries of Riemann's tensor. See the extensive discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ACounterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=801452&oldid=799266 here].
#:The reference to the twin paradox suggests that the author thought that the passage of time is some kind of scalar field that should be obtainable as the path integral of a conservative vector field. It is not. Passage of time is a property of one's path through spacetime, and is similar to path length. (In fact, under the Lorentz/Minkowski metric, it is exactly path length.) Just as two paths from point A to point B on a sheet of paper can have different lengths, the paths of the twins can have different lengths, and hence different elapsed local times.
#''The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?''
#:The "Ehrenfest paradox" is not an actual paradox. Non-inertial relativistic motion of solid bodies is quite complicated, involving such concepts as "Born rigidity", "Langevin observers", the "Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric", and "quotient manifolds". In general, the subject is complicated, and has provided physicists with much food for thought. But it does not disprove relativity.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.''
#:The claims of that item are preposterous. Read the cited paper (or its abstract) carefully. Einstein's statement that clocks would run slower at the equator, due to time dilation, was correct according to special relativity alone. What Einstein didn't realize, because he wouldn't discover general relativity for another 10 years, was that the gravitational time shift would offset that.
#:A "geoid" (the shape dicussed in the paper) is a theoretical shape used in mathematical physics, that is in equilibrium between the effects of centrifugal force (from rotation) and gravity. It is essentially an oblate spheroid. It can be thought of as the shape a rotating planet would take if it were completely fluid. Or it could be thought of as the shape of "global sea level". Jupiter, because of its rapid rotation, has a very pronounced flattening at the poles. Since Jupiter is not solid, its shape is a geoid. The Earth is ''very nearly'' a geoid, of course. But not exactly, because of gravitational nonuniformities, and things like mountains, that can exist because of the Earth's rigidity. No one "made new assumptions about the Earth's shape" to justify anything. The assumption that the Earth's shape is a geoid is a theoretical assumption due to the ''approximately'' fluid nature of the Earth. But no one claims that the Earth's shape is anything other than what it is observed and measured to be.
#:What the paper is about is the fact that the effects of rotational speed and gravitational time dilation happen to cancel each other on an ideal geoid. So all clocks at "sea level" on an ideal geoid-shaped planet run at the same speed. Whether this result is implausible is not for us to say.
#:The cited paper does not refute relativity.
#''The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.''
#:The physics and mathematics underlying the "twin paradox" are well known. That one of the twins will have had to undergo different accelerations from the other before returning to the same point is what enables them to perceive different passage of time. This does not contradict relativity, and Einstein never said that it does. His explanation in terms of different acceleration is correct.
#:The comment about extending the length of the trip so that the acceleration would be ''de minimis'' is wrong. It seems to suggest that the acceleration could be reduced until it is negligible. It can be reduced by lengthening the trip, but it is not negligible. The Lorentz transform, and the equations of motion, are mathematically exact. The integral of a very small function over a long period is still significant. If the twins followed different paths in spacetime, which they must in order to measure different elapsed proper time, they must have undergone different accelerations, however small those differences may have been.
#:Of course, if they never come back to the same point, they could both undergo zero acceleration.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.''
#:Quantum field theory abounds with fields. The Higgs particle has a Higgs field. It has nothing to do with the "luminiferous aether".
#''Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.''
#:Time isn't a vector. It is a component of the vector space known as "spacetime". Vectors have negatives; the word "inverse" is not typically used here. While there are thermodynamic and other reasons for not allowing time to go backwards in the real world, the mathematics of spacetime allow vectors with any components, even negative ones.
#''In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.''
#:That a Bible verse "likely" refers to a scientific phenomenon does not make good science. The objection appears to be claiming that the Bible contradicts the Michelson-Morley experiment, so the latter must be wrong. The Michelson-Morley experiment is very well known, has been repeated countless times, and is incontrovertible. To suggest that the Bible verse in Genesis contradicts such an incontrovertible phenomenon does a disservice to both the Bible and to science.
#''It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].''
#:Modern formulations of the Lorentz aether theory may very well make it completely equivalent to relativity, both special and general. But that doesn't make relativity wrong; it just means that another theory is just as correct. The universal preference of the scientific community for relativity over the Lorentz theory is probably not based on religious faith, but on simplicity, as expressed in [[Occam's razor]]. The Lorentz theory postulates an aether that no experiment can possibly determine the properties of, while relativity postulates no aether.
#''Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."''
#:They are not "beyond understanding". They are simply beyond closed-form solution. Cosmologists work with approximate solutions, calculated by extensive computer calculations, all the time. A well-known example of this is the simulation of galaxy dynamics. Particle physicists do this also, in, for example, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) calculations. It is fortunate that the equations of Keplerian/Newtonian planetary motion were solvable by the mathematical methods of the 17th century—a closed-form solution to a second-order differential equation. Modern physics problems are much harder. But, with modern computers, we can solve the equations of gravity to enormous precision.
#''Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein's Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."''
#:The first cited reference, from which the quote was taken, is a totally crackpot web page, from a web site that seems to specialize in hosting crackpot papers. The writing is utterly illiterate and incoherent, as in this sentence: "According to Faraday's Law it can be explained as that, duo to the magnetic flux in conductor line changing, firstly induced electromotive force dU coming from the line-winded conductor to bring out voltage, then based on differential form <math>I = \frac{-\sigma s dU}{dl}</math> of Ohm's Law, the physical natural would be regarded as 'voltage before electric current' "
#''Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.''
#:The equations of electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations), and their connection with relativity, are well known. Hundreds of electrodynamics textbooks cover this subject. The equations are correct at all realizable speeds, even relativistic (''near'' the speed of light) speeds. (Maxwell's equations are said to be the only equations from classical physics that did not need to be modified for relativity.) The equations correctly describe the behavior of magnets (this is presumably what was meant by "solenoids"), charges, and electric and magnetic fields, even at speeds near the speed of light. Of course the equations don't work ''at'' the speed of light. The cited article never discussed speeds ''near'' the speed of light, only ''at'' the speed of light. The questioner was rightly taken to task for his physically unrealizable assumption.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:science]]

User:JudyJ

2012-07-22T20:56:25Z

JudyJ: Make headings look better

I'm a physics student at a large state university.

I'll put in more info, and maybe a few "user boxes", soon.

==Evolution==
Here is why I accept evolution. This is intended as an adjunct to my answers to the "quantifying openmindness" test.

To be clear, I specifically mean Darwinian macro-evolution. This has nothing to do with cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, geological evolution, molecular evolution, or abiogenesis.

Simply put, the scientific evidence is utterly overwhelming, and becomes more so with each passing year. Even though we don't see direct evidence of macro-evolution happening before our eyes (though we do see micro-evolution happening with E. Coli bacteria, with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and with pesticide-resistant pests), the evidence is totally overwhelming. It is not necessary to see something with ones own eyes to be absolutely certain that it is true—no one has seen an electron, or a proton, or a neutrino, or a W+ boson.

Specifically, what the scientific evidence tells us is that '''Darwinian evolution is the correct explanation for the diversity of the tree of living beings'''. In Darwin's time, the evidence was somewhat circumstantial, and his claims were not totally buttressed by genetic evidence. This made his theory somewhat controversial, and the scientific community at large took some time to accept it.

But recent developments in genetics, particularly DNA sequencing, make the case overwhelmingly strong. The DNA evidence showing the genetic relationships, buttressed by the geological evidence showing the timelines of the various phyla and species, is unmistakable. And it is getting more so as time passes. Every few months I come across another article showing how DNA analysis has helped put another piece of the puzzle in place, explaining yet another aspect of the biological "family tree".

There are thousands upon thousands of books, articles, and journal papers explaining and discussing these points. One can go to any bookstore, especially college bookstores, and get a wealth of information on the subject.

==Other places to look==
Are there alternatives that need to be considered? Of course. One needs to be openminded about this. As part of my openminded investigation of this topic, I looked at what really ought to be a good source for alternative explanations—Conservapedia itself. Conservapedia is known to take an editorial stance against evolution, so it ought to be able to explain why evolution is wrong.

===Conservapedia's evolution page===
But Conservapedia's page on the subject is filled with fundamentalist religious material, crowding out any attempt at a decent scientific analysis. It just goes on and on and on with fundamentalism, along with digressions into obesity, bestiality, atheism, Communism, and other totally unrelated topics, along with pictures of Hitler, Stalin, various creationists, a Lion, ants, and cats. This is not the way to do science. Discussion of some stupid thing someone said about how "black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women" is not the way to do science. Filling the page with links to creationist or fundamentalist websites is not the way to convince people looking for scientific explanations.

===Conservapedia's front page===
So maybe the evolution page itself wasn't the right place to look. Surely a web site that is so strongly against evolution will give, or point to, some convincing argument. I looked at the main page. Sure enough, the left side has quite a number of links to various web sites (as of July 22):
*1 link referring to using technology to "overrun Darwinism"
*4 links relating to Nobel prize selection and creationists
*1 link relating to Adolf Eichmann and his beliefs relative to evolution
*4 links relating to the notion of a "young earth" and "young universe"
*1 link referring to Biblical creationism
*3 links to "evolutionary indoctrination"
*1 link to a "resource to refute evolutionists"
'''Every single one of these links is to a fundamentalist religious web page'''! Four are to a "blogspot" blog (which, in the first sentence, mentions its connection with "Creation Ministries International"), and the other 11 are to the "creation.com" web site. Conservapedia had 15 opportunities to make a scientific case against evolution in these front-page links, and threw them all away.

===Conservapedia's thermodynamics page===
There are other pages at Conservapedia that relate to this topic. One is the page on the second law of thermodynamics. It contains the claim that the second law disproves evolution. That is nonsense. (It also says that it disproves relativity, a claim which is even more nonsensical.) The scientific discussion on the page is totally confused and misguided, and appears to be written for the specific purpose of refuting evolution, rather than elucidating scientific points. It seems to make an all-encompassing claim that disorder never decreases anywhere, so evolution could not have happened. This is simply false. A number of people (including myself) have attempted to argue the case on the talk page, and those attempts were simply met with the steadfast refusal, by an admin, to allow this to be changed—"It's impossible to go into reverse ... Case closed."

In addition to the scientific discussion, the page has huge amounts of the usual irrelevancies—creationist web site discussion and links, a picture of a creationist, discussion of politics, and a quote from Genesis.

==="Intelligent design"===
Well, this is better than making an argument on purely Biblical grounds, but it still doesn't work. "Intelligent design" is well known to be creationism with religion scrubbed from it. It is widely believed that the point of this is to satisfy First Amendment principles about separation of church and state in scientific textbooks in school.

OK, fair enough. But, when Biblical arguments are removed, how good a case can be made? I looked at the [[www.intelligentdesign.org]] web site. It appears to make good on its promise not to use religious arguments. But its argument really boils down to this: The tree of life is too marvelous to have come into existence without some "intelligent designer" having made it happen.

This is a negative and totally unsatisfying argument. It really amounts to saying "because we don't [yet] understand how something works, we ascribe it to an intelligent being." This is not the way to do science. When you come across something you don't understand, you don't just throw in the towel this way. Thousands of things that were not understood at one time became understood later, through research and careful thinking. Such knowledge gaps as the evolution of eyes, or of bacterial flagella, or the failure to find certain transitional fossils, get explained all the time. There have been many cases of people claiming that certain transitional fossils are missing, and therefore evolution must be wrong, only to have the missing fossils found later. Science marches on.

There is no doubt that the universe in which we live is marvelous. Evolution is one of the marvels. The fine structure constant is another, as is the inhomogeneity of the universe just after the big bang, the strength of the strong force, the solubility of carbon dioxide, the crystal structure of water, and so on. Much has been written about the many seeming miracles that make the universe work and make life possible. (In the scientific literature, the phenomenon is often described as the "anthropic principle".) Unlikely or "miraculous" as the value of the fine structure constant might be, scientist don't just say that it isn't true. '''Biological evolution, like the value of the fine structure constant, may be marvelous or "miraculous", but it is nevertheless true'''.

Now we don't know why these things are true. Could it be that some intelligent designer made them so? Perhaps. But we don't say that, because we don't understand them, they aren't true. The marvelous/miraculous nature of the universe '''is really true'''. And that includes evolution. Did God cause all this to happen? Quite possibly. But it is not our place to second-guess just how He did it. That's for us to figure out. Using science.

So "intelligent design" is really just a cop-out. If you don't understand something, you don't just say that it can't be true.

If Conservapedia can't make, or point to, a case for believing evolution to be false, who can?

User:JudyJ

2012-07-22T20:55:23Z

JudyJ: evolution, and the quantifying openmindedness test

I'm a physics student at a large state university.

I'll put in more info, and maybe a few "user boxes", soon.

Here is why I accept evolution. This is intended as an adjunct to my answers to the "quantifying openmindness" test.

To be clear, I specifically mean Darwinian macro-evolution. This has nothing to do with cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, geological evolution, molecular evolution, or abiogenesis.

Simply put, the scientific evidence is utterly overwhelming, and becomes more so with each passing year. Even though we don't see direct evidence of macro-evolution happening before our eyes (though we do see micro-evolution happening with E. Coli bacteria, with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and with pesticide-resistant pests), the evidence is totally overwhelming. It is not necessary to see something with ones own eyes to be absolutely certain that it is true—no one has seen an electron, or a proton, or a neutrino, or a W+ boson.

Specifically, what the scientific evidence tells us is that '''Darwinian evolution is the correct explanation for the diversity of the tree of living beings'''. In Darwin's time, the evidence was somewhat circumstantial, and his claims were not totally buttressed by genetic evidence. This made his theory somewhat controversial, and the scientific community at large took some time to accept it.

But recent developments in genetics, particularly DNA sequencing, make the case overwhelmingly strong. The DNA evidence showing the genetic relationships, buttressed by the geological evidence showing the timelines of the various phyla and species, is unmistakable. And it is getting more so as time passes. Every few months I come across another article showing how DNA analysis has helped put another piece of the puzzle in place, explaining yet another aspect of the biological "family tree".

There are thousands upon thousands of books, articles, and journal papers explaining and discussing these points. One can go to any bookstore, especially college bookstores, and get a wealth of information on the subject.

==Other places to look==
Are there alternatives that need to be considered? Of course. One needs to be openminded about this. As part of my openminded investigation of this topic, I looked at what really ought to be a good source for alternative explanations—Conservapedia itself. Conservapedia is known to take an editorial stance against evolution, so it ought to be able to explain why evolution is wrong.

===Conservapedia's evolution page===
But Conservapedia's page on the subject is filled with fundamentalist religious material, crowding out any attempt at a decent scientific analysis. It just goes on and on and on with fundamentalism, along with digressions into obesity, bestiality, atheism, Communism, and other totally unrelated topics, along with pictures of Hitler, Stalin, various creationists, a Lion, ants, and cats. This is not the way to do science. Discussion of some stupid thing someone said about how "black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women" is not the way to do science. Filling the page with links to creationist or fundamentalist websites is not the way to convince people looking for scientific explanations.

===Conservapedia's front page===
So maybe the evolution page itself wasn't the right place to look. Surely a web site that is so strongly against evolution will give, or point to, some convincing argument. I looked at the main page. Sure enough, the left side has quite a number of links to various web sites (as of July 22):
*1 link referring to using technology to "overrun Darwinism"
*4 links relating to Nobel prize selection and creationists
*1 link relating to Adolf Eichmann and his beliefs relative to evolution
*4 links relating to the notion of a "young earth" and "young universe"
*1 link referring to Biblical creationism
*3 links to "evolutionary indoctrination"
*1 link to a "resource to refute evolutionists"
'''Every single one of these links is to a fundamentalist religious web page'''! Four are to a "blogspot" blog (which, in the first sentence, mentions its connection with "Creation Ministries International"), and the other 11 are to the "creation.com" web site. Conservapedia had 15 opportunities to make a scientific case against evolution in these front-page links, and threw them all away.

===Conservapedia's thermodynamics page===
There are other pages at Conservapedia that relate to this topic. One is the page on the second law of thermodynamics. It contains the claim that the second law disproves evolution. That is nonsense. (It also says that it disproves relativity, a claim which is even more nonsensical.) The scientific discussion on the page is totally confused and misguided, and appears to be written for the specific purpose of refuting evolution, rather than elucidating scientific points. It seems to make an all-encompassing claim that disorder never decreases anywhere, so evolution could not have happened. This is simply false. A number of people (including myself) have attempted to argue the case on the talk page, and those attempts were simply met with the steadfast refusal, by an admin, to allow this to be changed—"It's impossible to go into reverse ... Case closed."

In addition to the scientific discussion, the page has huge amounts of the usual irrelevancies—creationist web site discussion and links, a picture of a creationist, discussion of politics, and a quote from Genesis.

==="Intelligent design"===
Well, this is better than making an argument on purely Biblical grounds, but it still doesn't work. "Intelligent design" is well known to be creationism with religion scrubbed from it. It is widely believed that the point of this is to satisfy First Amendment principles about separation of church and state in scientific textbooks in school.

OK, fair enough. But, when Biblical arguments are removed, how good a case can be made? I looked at the [[www.intelligentdesign.org]] web site. It appears to make good on its promise not to use religious arguments. But its argument really boils down to this: The tree of life is too marvelous to have come into existence without some "intelligent designer" having made it happen.

This is a negative and totally unsatisfying argument. It really amounts to saying "because we don't [yet] understand how something works, we ascribe it to an intelligent being." This is not the way to do science. When you come across something you don't understand, you don't just throw in the towel this way. Thousands of things that were not understood at one time became understood later, through research and careful thinking. Such knowledge gaps as the evolution of eyes, or of bacterial flagella, or the failure to find certain transitional fossils, get explained all the time. There have been many cases of people claiming that certain transitional fossils are missing, and therefore evolution must be wrong, only to have the missing fossils found later. Science marches on.

There is no doubt that the universe in which we live is marvelous. Evolution is one of the marvels. The fine structure constant is another, as is the inhomogeneity of the universe just after the big bang, the strength of the strong force, the solubility of carbon dioxide, the crystal structure of water, and so on. Much has been written about the many seeming miracles that make the universe work and make life possible. (In the scientific literature, the phenomenon is often described as the "anthropic principle".) Unlikely or "miraculous" as the value of the fine structure constant might be, scientist don't just say that it isn't true. '''Biological evolution, like the value of the fine structure constant, may be marvelous or "miraculous", but it is nevertheless true'''.

Now we don't know why these things are true. Could it be that some intelligent designer made them so? Perhaps. But we don't say that, because we don't understand them, they aren't true. The marvelous/miraculous nature of the universe '''is really true'''. And that includes evolution. Did God cause all this to happen? Quite possibly. But it is not our place to second-guess just how He did it. That's for us to figure out. Using science.

So "intelligent design" is really just a cop-out. If you don't understand something, you don't just say that it can't be true.

If Conservapedia can't make, or point to, a case for believing evolution to be false, who can?

Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2012-07-22T20:52:29Z

JudyJ: /* More answers */ new section

::''If you wish to discuss whether Newtonian gravity could have a different exponent than 2, see [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|the debate page]].''

== Not a suitable criterion ==
I don't think that "a genuine willingness to accept something as possibly being true" is a suitable criterion. It doesn't take into account the difference between the following two scenarios:
* A person who has never considered the evidence. For example, I would be close-minded to say that [[Noah]] could not have fitted all the animals on the ark if I didn't know how big the ark was and how many animals would have qualified.
* A person who has considered the available evidence and has formed a considered opinion. For example, I would be not be close-minded to say that evolution is impossible if I had studied [[information]] theory and knew how it negated the possibility.
A better definition might be "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Excellent! I've made the change. God bless you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks! I'm glad you appreciated it.
:However, I believe that it now renders your examples tests invalid. You can't test for a willingness to consider the evidence by asking someone if they accept the possibility of something. If they've already considered the possibility and have concluded that it is impossible, they have been open minded on it, but would still "fail" the test.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:45, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: We can ask subjects a mixture of new ideas and ones they've already heard. It can be two questions:

1. Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?
2. If no, then would you?
3. If yes, then describe what evidence you looked at.

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:02, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Would saying that something is absolutely the case be just as bad as impossible that something is the case? Are people who believe without equivocation that (say...) trickle down economics works just as close minded those who believe that without equivocation that it does not? I would assert that there are people who are just as close minded about the possibility the examples that you gave as there are people who are close minded about the impossibility of the examples. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:08, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: But look at the definition of openmindedness, "a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea." That's the difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: You've got the Shroud of Turin as an example. What is your stance on that? What evidence have you considered? If presented with evidence to the contrary, are you willing to change your mind? The last two questions are potentially critical ones. This is not something that someone can eaisly say "your OMQ is such and such based on this test." What about situations where there is not 'evidence' to be considered? There are a multitude of social issues out there that people feel quite strongly upon with very little open mindedness on either side. One extreme difficulty with this test is that the questions can very easily be weighted to one political view or another to make it look like the other side are a bunch of close minded fools. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::: No, I think the three questions are simple and straightforward. We can elaborate a bit as follows:

'''Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?'''
:1a. If no, then is that because you have never heard of it?
::1aa. If if you have never heard of it, then will you seriously consider the evidence?
::1ab. If you have heard of it, but have never seriously considered the evidence, then on this question you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
:2b. If yes, then how much time have you spent reviewing the evidence? What evidence did you look at?
::2ba. If less than 1 hour, then you lose a point for lack of openmindedness.
::2bb. If more than 1 hour, then you gain a point for openmindedness.

(the time period may vary depending on the complexity of the topic).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:15, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:Now that's getting much closer to a suitable test. I'm glad you put that last point in; before I read it, my reaction was, "but one hour may not always be appropriate".
:Another thought that needs developing: There are lots of things that I won't spend the time considering, simply because I don't have the time. But in those cases, I try not to criticise the idea because I haven't properly considered it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. I'll incorporate all these concepts now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: I have a question about your 1ab point. If for example, someone says no, they haven't seriously considered the evidence for the Shroud of Turin, but have heard of it, how does that make them less open minded? What if to that person the topic is just not found to be very interesting, and they prefer to spend time researching topics that are more interesting to them? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:23, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: OK, in that case the follow-up question should be whether the person forms an opinion for himself about this topic without looking at the evidence. If the answer is yes, then that is quintessential closemindedness. I'll update the content page based on your excellent point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Something else I think you have to consider with this kind of test is that it is easy to misrepresent yourself on it. I believe "openmindedness" to be a trait which most people would deem to be a good trait. Therefore going into this exam, people will want the outcome to give them a more favorable score so it is heavily reliant on the test takers being 100% accurate in their responses. Whereas with an IQ test, you are asked questions with definitive answers where you either know the answer, or you don't. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:33, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: Good point, but asking about specific amounts of time spent considering the evidence would seem to minimize the problem you describe. If further precautions are warranted, then follow-up questions about when, where, what, how could be asked concerning reviewing evidence. In fact, I'll add that now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Colest, you've done a better job then I could've explaining why I'm dubious (but not shut-off to the idea) about this test. If it is subjective enough that a person can misrepresent himself, are we really quantifying anything with this score? That political compass thing that some CPers advertise their scores from is neat and all, but I'd never try to use the number in any meaningful way.

::If this is just a conversation starter then cool, but from the other endeavors Andy is involved in that sounds a little trivial to me. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- pursuing the trivial...''

== Example Questions and Topics ==

I see a couple of problems with the topics section of this essay. The first concern is a minor one. You have, as an example, “For example, did our subject think that President Ronald Reagan's exhortation, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this [Berlin] wall!" was an impossibility?” But, properly, speaking, it is not a statement that can be examined as a possibility (or impossibility) , since imperatives are neither true nor false. A better way to word this question would be, “When President Regan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?” Of course, this is not an especially good measure in the present, since, most people will report that they thought it was possible (even if they did not at the time, as people tend to misremember their past, to bring their past in line with there present reality).

The second problem I see is that the questions, as they now stand will clearly skew the results toward Conservatives being more open-minded—questions asking whether conservatives are open to liberal ideas should be included to make sure that the data is not inadvertently slanted. For example, “Did our subject think, or still think, that his/her understanding of the Bible may be wrong?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that evolution is possible?” “Did our subject think, or still think, that human behavior could warm the global climate?” and “Did our subject think, or still think, that homosexuality could be a natural behavior?”--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: You rewording of the Reagan is longer, but fine. I'll change it per your comment.

: I think we should add liberal-oriented questions. But your examples do not focus on a belief in impossibility, which is the essential element here. Perhaps you'd like to refine some liberal questions that ask about impossibility, for me to add?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::I’ll take a second stab at it:
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that evolution could have occurred?”
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that he/she could be mistaken about the truth of the Bible?” (I rather like this one as it cuts both ways, a believer is (implicitly) being asked if he/she thinks that atheism or some other religion could possibly be true, while a non-believer is asked if he/she thinks Christianity could be true.)
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that homosexuality is a natural behavior?”
::“Does our subject think that it is impossible that the global climate is currently warming as a result of human behavior?”
::How do those look to you? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:04, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Those questions look fine to me. Some further refinements to limit them to facts might be helpful. But basically they look OK, and I'll add them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Couldn't this method of quantifying openmindedness be manipulated to receive any set of desired results? For example, if I was to ask "does our subject think that it is impossible for God to exist", then I could automatically chalk up one closed-mindedness point from anybody who is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. There are bound to be many questions like this, no? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:43, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:For all queries for 'do you believe it is imposssible that x' there should be a matching 'do you believe that it is possible that not x'. X then merely has to cover all ideological issue. You could even have some a priori ones as control questions. {{unsigned|Lookamoose}}

== Curious About... ==

So, there's a conversation on the Main Page that directs to this essay; it's an interesting read. However, the poster is asked "By the way, what's your score on Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness?" I thought I'd be better able to follow the conversation if I found out my own score. Am I missing a link or something? I don't see any way that I can derive a score.

I have to admit, at the risk of sounding close-minded, I'm dubious about coming up with a useful measurement. That said, here I am, checking out the source. I'll even give it more than an hour. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:41, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-An open mind and a closed parentheses''

: I suspect your real objection is to trying at all. Six questions are posted. What's your score on those six?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: *blink* Andy, you and I have actually agreed on things on the front page. I know we're not of one mind on a lot of things (and I really do worry about isolating rather than engaging, but I know you'd disagree on that characterization), and I know you're too busy to remember who's who all the time (and I'm a pretty minor poster, I know), but an aggressive stance seems unwarranted.

:: Anyway, here are my answers:

:: 1) No, but to be fair I wasn't particularly engaged in national and world affairs back then so I shouldn't get too much credit for that.

::: Evidence issue - maybe I'm favoring myself, but I choose not to deduct a point for failing to look at the evidence when it wasn't a conscious decision; I barely noticed the event taking place.

:: 2) I never thought it was impossible. I have no advanced scientific knowledge so it would be ludicrous for me to assume that a technology is or is not possible. It actually sounds simple to me, but I've been told that it's harder than it looks.

::: Evidence issue - if I'm reading the essay correctly, I lose a point for having heard of the issue but not investigating the evidence, even though I agree it's possible. Is that correct?

:: 3) Sure it can be authentic. There's a lot stranger things in the world than that.

::: Evidence issue - Same as #2. I accept the possibility but haven't looked into it. Do I lose a point?

:: 4) I don't think the speed of light changing over time is impossible. I also don't know the arguments for or against it.

::: Evidence issue - same as #3.

:: 5) I don't think it's impossible, but of course as I mentioned before I'm dubious. If you're interested in the conversation I'll tell you why, but you haven't asked and I won't assume.

::: Evidence issue - well, I'm working on it right now, so this would be incomplete.

:: 6) Depends on how far you want to split hairs here. If you mean the evolution vs. creation debate, I absolutely accept the possibility that we were Created. If you mean ANY evolution whatsoever... well, I guess I live by "never say never" but we're talking about a very low level of accepting the possibility.

::: Evidence issue - Not to split hairs again, but on the one hand I've clocked in many hours going to church, reading books, and browsing sites like this one. On the other hand, I'm not particularly interested in the evolution debate, so I haven't tried to digest all of the arguments. So... point? No point? Again, I accept the premise, so it seems kind of moot.

:: So, my raw score for accepting the ideas presented is either 5 or 6, depending on how you score #6. Depending on how you adjust for the follow-up questions, my score ranges from 1 to 7 (and possibly 8 depending on how long this goes on).

:: [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:36, 2 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- my mind is open, but there's a bouncer''

== Definition ==
I see Andy "removed claims that no scientists or significant groups support". Perhaps "openmindness" should be redefined as a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that scientists and significant groups support'' before rejecting the idea. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:12, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: Insert "some" before scientists and "or" rather than "and", which would be consistent with the quote above, and I wouldn't object to that modified definition: a genuine willingness to consider the evidence ''for an idea that some scientists or significant groups support''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Define it any way you want. But as it is, your questions don't really match your definition. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:01, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

==new question==

We need a question in this essay that asks the user if they believe it is possible that God doesn't exist. This question drives to the heart of open-mindedness. Please do not remove it without legitimate discussion. --[[User:AntnyGonzo|AntnyGonzo]] 19:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:No, Gonzo...YOU will ask the author of the essay first if you can alter it. As far as I'm concerned, you have no authorization to alter an essay of any kind. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:36, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:And why do we need such a question?
:FYI, the question you pose runs entirely counter to the thrust of the essay. An essay is not an ordinary article. It is an original work. As such, it is for the author of that original work to decide whether to include anything or not.
:Publish your question here, by all means--and be prepared to take criticism as to the appropriateness of the question.
:But '''you''' do not unilaterally change the essayist's work. If you are serious about whether being open-minded means deciding that God need not exist, write your own essay. But don't go ruining someone else's.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:38, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::The user has been indef blocked, anyway. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 19:39, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::So he has. But I'll let my comment stand anyway, as a warning to anyone who might feel the slightest temptation to repeat his bad example.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Gonzo's demand was we talk about his "alteration" on the talk page only, rather than him bring it up on the talk page, ar ask the author if he could change it first. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:43, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::The essay started with the request ''comments or improvements welcome'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness&diff=250174&oldid=146961]. [[User:JohnMalin|JohnMalin]] 19:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes it did, but since it's an essay, those comments or improvements needed to be posted and disgussed on the talk page. Gonzo was more willing to shoot first and aks questions later. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Ok, well I'm interested in the discussion that was so poorly started. I don't really care if the question is about the existence of God, since that's probably a lightning rod of argument, but with the possible exception of the last question about the precision of Newtonian gravity, and I don't understand it so I say "possible", all of those questions clearly drive at "ok, lib, you really think you're open-minded?"

I believe that the Essay would benefit from example questions like "Is it possible that President Bush knowingly presented misleading evidence to the nation, rather than by mistake?" or "Do you think that it is impossible that, through mistranslation or any other reason, the age of the Earth is misunderstood by Young Earth Creationists?" [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:07, 25 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-ponderously...''

: I'm open to adding liberal questions. I deleted an earlier attempt to do this because the questions referred to crackpot theories for which there is neither scientific nor public support, like claiming that humans were populated by UFOs from outer space.

: I don't have any problem with the questions posed by Aziraphale above as part of a test of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Unclear questions==

Interesting idea, I answered the questions. However there are two questions that are not completely clear:
8, "Do you think that there ''must'' be a material explanation for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?" ''Material'' is unclear. Of course there is some physical ability that they have that allows them to home, so do you mean "naturalistic" instead, as in shaped without God?

11, "Do you think that it is possible that evolution did not occur?" I take it you mean universal common descent, so perhaps it should read "...that the theory of evolution is false?" Evolution is a vague term and it encompasses speciation and descent with modification, which are accepted by virtually everyone. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:23, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

: Your point about question 8 is interesting, but I don't see how use of the term "naturalistic" improves it. Everyone understands what "material explanation" means, but "naturalistic" is far from clear. The question is whether the homing must be guided by something material, such as magnetism, or can it be guided by non-material phenomena, such as intelligent design that might allow for abstract programming features or divine guidance or another mechanism that transcends materialism.

: As to question 11, I think the term "evolution" is widely understood to have the meaning that Darwin used for it. I realize that some have attempted to change its meaning to salvage the concept, such as redefining evolution to be any change, but I'm reluctant to use jargon like "universal common descent" rather than commonly understood terminology. Perhaps a footnote could explain further, which you're welcome to add!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:31, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

==Unjustified Edit?==
Regarding Question Two ("# Have you ever admitted that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false? "), I reversed the question to "Have you ever realized that something you accepted for over a decade was, in fact, completely false?" and it was reverted as an unjustified edit. I did this because a yes means closed-minded, while accepting and admitting that you have changed your mind on one of your long-term beliefs is more openminded. It´s the same question, but phrased differently so it doesn´t corrupt the taker´s score. [[User:MaryC|MaryC]] 17:43, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

:You're right about the need to reverse the question to avoid corrupting the score. Thank you. I've made that change. But the reason for the reversion is that you conditioned the question on a realization. It is the closed mind that refuses to attain that realization, so that condition had to be reverted.

:Thanks for your insightful edit and comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:23, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

== Just my answers, for fun! ==

1. No, of course not.

2. A decade ago, I was 13... so, no

3. Who would? I'VE never been to jail, unlike basically every celebrity I can name.

4. What's that town in Montana with MANDATORY gun ownership, and ZERO crime?

5. I was 11 months old.

6. I thought SDI was demonstrated to work - haven't we shot down satellites? Haven't the Chinese, as well?

7. I think it is unlikely, not impossible. I've researched it a bit.

8. I think there must be an explanation, material or not.

9. No, but I think if it was there would be evidence, possibly evidence we have yet to find.

10. You can obviously measure it - take a man like [[Lee Strobel]], compare to [[Richard Dawkins]]... there ya go!

11. It is possible, yes.

12. Actually, yes, I do think this is impossible. Very simply, because the power of 2 wasn't arrived at by experimentation or observation, but by pure hard logic. Additionally, in Newtonian gravity, it is 2 - that is part of what defines Newtonian gravity. If it wasn't 2, then we wouldn't be talking about Newtonian gravity anymore.

13. A lot of what I was taught was definitely false.

14. There may be elements of Catholicism which are false, but on the whole, I'm pretty committed to it.

I just did this for fun, don't go jumping down my throat for anything! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

: You're open-minded. Congratulations! (I altered two of the questions since you responded.)

==Test Answers==
1. No. And I don't resist admitting the idea that a liberal, libertarian or etc., education is far more effective than a conservative education.

2. No. I have done this more than once throughout my life with religious and political philosophies.

3. No. Just as any value system has the possibility of harming different people, whether it's Hollywood values, so-called family values, religious values, secular values, etc.

4. No. The crime rate is affected by many variables, and using a simplistic statistic like gun ownership to predict causation for overall crime rates is nonsense. For example, private gun ownership or a lack thereof will not affect tax cheats.

5. No. People and societies have overcome barriers like the Berlin Wall many times before.

6. No. SDI was never impossible, yet much of the technology was not practical at the time. Even today some of the technology is still in the concept or development stage.

7. No. But there is very little evidence that shows the shroud was not painted by an artist. That is why many people accept the Shroud on faith.

8. No. But there is plenty of natural evidence that birds use landmarks and natural direction finding to navigate.

9. No. The speed of light in a vacuum may have been different in the past, for example, just after the Big Bang. But there is no convincing evidence that I know of that demonstrates the speed of light has changed over the past millennia.

10. No. But using a biased simplistic test is not the way to go about it.

11. No. There may be another explanation for life on Earth besides evolution, but the convincing evidence is not there according to 99% of the world's biologists.

12. No. There is a difference between 2 and 2.00000001, but why make things more difficult than what they already are? In other words, my 20 mile trip to work would be 25 thousands of an inch longer or shorter if we used such maddening precision.

13. No. No one person or organization is correct all the time. I have known for years some of what I was taught in class was false and I suspect the teachers knew it was because they were required to teach the material.

According to Conservapedia standards, I am a very open-minded person.
--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 12:47, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

: You may well be open-minded. [[Ronald Reagan]] and other former liberals must have been open-minded or they never would have become conservatives. The famous atheist [[Anthony Flew]] must have been open-minded or else he never would have found [[faith]] late in life.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

==Another question==

"If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:12, 27 December 2009 (EST)

==More questions==

I added a couple of questions. Previously it was only able to discern liberal closed minded people. However being open minded means also being open minded to liberal ideas because only this way you can debunk them. Therefor it's important to have liberal questions in order to make this a better test.[[User:Marnick|Marnick]] 13:35, 25 February 2010 (EST)

==A thought==

I tried this test, because I think is an interesting idea. Six "yes," twelve "no." But some of these questions were confusing to me. I know your website is for mostly Americans who understand these things, but would it not be better to have more general questions? The questions about specific political issues may be hard for people who do not follow American politics. Thank you.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 00:47, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:Thanks for your suggestion, but could you be a bit more specific? I glanced at the questions and they do seem to be general in nature.

:Also, I wonder about the last one, which you added. It's rare to find someone who thinks a democracy is ''impossible'' for a people. Democracy may be incompatible with other forms of government, such as a theocracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 27 February 2010 (EST)

::Most of them are general but I had troubled with 6, 7 and 8. I had to look up the Shroud of Turin, and I am not so familiar with Mr. Reagan's specific policies. As for my question, it was a thought based on what I have heard from some people. Some people think that a certain culture can be incompatable with liberty. Of course, I do not believe this. If liberty is natural state of people, then all people can enjoy it. I will accept your judgment on my question, though.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 11:03, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:::The Shroud of Turin (question 8) has nothing to do with America. The Berlin Wall (question 6) was, of course, in Berlin and not America. SDI/Star Wars (question 7) is well-known in Europe also, because some of the defenses would be put there, but I agree it may be unfamiliar to those on other continents. I don't think these questions change the overall score significantly for those who might be unfamiliar with them. But thanks for your suggestions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:51, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Most of the questions seem to ask "do you think it's possible," not "do you think it's true," which is very important. I don't buy that the Shroud of Turin is any more than a fraud (along with the rest of the relics Rome likes to peddle), but I wouldn't say it's ''impossible.'' The only one I'm inclined to say "yes" for is SDI - it's probably impossible to get it functional with today's technology, but give it a few years and we'll see, and I have to go with N/A for the Berlin Wall question, not having existed at the time. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:22, 27 February 2010 (EST)

: You're right in explaining how this is a test of open-mindedness, not a test of knowledge or opinions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:31, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Very well, this makes sense to me. Good luck on this project.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 14:45, 27 February 2010 (EST)

==Link to article==
This essay is very interesting! I am curious about the score one can achieve: is 'maximum' open-mindedness really a good thing? I have seen many talented people led astray by liberal philosophy during their studies, some going as far as to forsake their religion. In a liberal environment, open-mindedness would then be less useful than faith.
On the question on the laws of motion, I have recently come across an article which may interest conservapedian editors:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-03/spinning-disc-could-test-modified-newtonian-physics-and-kill-dark-matter-explanation
Regards, --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 11:31, 7 March 2010 (EST)

:Excellent link! I've even put your story on the [[Main Page]].

:You're point about "open-mindedness" potentially leading people astray is a valid one but only to the extent they are ''selectively'' open-minded and mostly closed-minded. On balance I think it is the closed-mindedness that is a problem, and Paul himself described this 2000 years in [[Romans (Translated)]], as I just learned this weekend as part of my translation efforts. Feel free to join that effort!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 7 March 2010 (EST)

=="Resist admitting"==
I'm trying to take this test, but it confuses me a little bit. Where it says "''Do you resist admitting (...)''", does this mean that you are close minded in case you have considered and/or studied the "(...)", and have come to the conclusion that you disagree with it? I think that, in that case, you do not ''resist'' admitting anything, because a person never feels an urge to admit something he genuinely disagrees with. Am I correct? -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 09:20, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

: Only 4 out of 20 questions use the phrase "resist admitting," and each time what follows is something that is undeniably true, but for which a close-minded person would resist admitting that it is true. I assume that no one taking the test would deny something that is undeniably true, but there are many close-minded people who would ''resist admitting'' the truth of the statements.

: If someone does deny the truth of what follows in those four statements, then of course that person should receive a point for doing so. That person would "resist admitting" as the question asks. Others who do not deny the truth of the statement but resist admitting it should receive a point also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:24, 9 August 2010 (EDT)
:: Point 1 is one I can not agree with, because I do not know much about it. I live in Belgium, and I would classify my education as liberal nor conservative, because I feel that the best of both sides was present in my education. When I search for information about it, I only find heavily biased information, such as that of Conservapedia (biased from a conservative view) and Wikipedia (biased from a non-conservative view). I think you can understand that it's hard to find credibility in sources who do everything to discredit each other. Therefore, I honestly have no idea whether conservative education is better or not. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 14:13, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

::I find it very odd to use the phrase "undeniably true" in the context of trying to develop an open-mindedness test. I should like to discuss how this relates to the following question:
::"1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a liberal one?"
::Sure, I have a certain amount of latent resistance to that statement, having received a fairly liberal education, with which I am quite satisfied. However I could not categorically say that a conservative approach would not have been better. Personally I think that a mixed approach, with some of the good elements of both educational styles would probably be better than either in isolation. So by the standards of this test I get a closed-minded point for my answer. At the same time, a strongly conservative person who dogmatically believes that the superiority of a conservative education is an “undeniable truth” will get a point towards the open mindedness score. This seems like a totally unbalanced way of testing open mindedness.
::It feels that like the same theme runs through most of the questions, questions which basically exempt strong conservatives from any danger of having to answer “yes”.
::I think the idea of a test like this is an interesting one, but in my opinion it has a long way to go.
::Having said all that, I just had a look around at some other "open-mindedness" tests and I must admit that the ones with a liberal slant are just as biased, but that doesn't make it ok.--[[User:BASE10|BASE10]] 10:58, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

::I just find it amusing that this is supposed to be an "open mindedness test," but the creator of the test is nowhere near open minded as evidenced by his statement that the statements following the phrase "resist admitting" are "undeniably true." An open mindedness test is not effective when made but someone who is not open minded.

==Gay marriage and the Olympic Games==
What does gay marriage have to do with the Olympics? [[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 19:27, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

Yes, I thought that was a bit of an odd question. --[[User:BASE10|BASE10]] 11:04, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

Am I wrong, or could socialism actually help a country on the Olympics? Without people shopping their own labor in the free market, you could track promising athletes and force them into training to win Olympic events, instead of letting them go professional to pursue their own careers, or even chose the amateur events they personally love. China had great success in the most recent Olympics doing just that, to the detriment of their people but to the ill-gotten glory of their country. But I would never trade America's freedom for a little Olympic success. I'm glad the American athletes representing our country in the Olympics made the free choice to do so(3/20 "yes" answers by the way)[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 00:56, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

You are absolutely right King, though the practice may be morally wrong. I don't think gay marriage has anything to do with the Olympics, many other countries don't have the same attitude about gay marriage as the U.S. does.

== Berlin Wall question ==
I think there should be an alternative question for those who weren't born yet, or weren't old enough to have any what it was/to care about it. Maybe add an alternative that addresses the same idea, but is more relevant to today? Such as 'Do you think it is impossible that Cuba will become a democracy?' - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

: How about adding it as an alternative question on the same line, without erasing the original? The advantages of the original question is that it is historical, not speculative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::That is what I meant, wasn't as clear as it could've been, but that is what I meant. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::And another possibility - "Do you think it is impossible that North Korea and South Korea will reunite into a single country, without being the result of one invading the other?" - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:06, 2 December 2011 (EST)

== Objectivity ==
Wouldn't it be better to ask more objective questions ? For example by replacing
* Do you think that evolution must have occurred?
by
* Do you think that evolution '''or''' creation must have occurred? --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]]

: The first question is meaningful, because if someone thinks that evolution '''''must''''' have occurred then he is closed-minded to what the evidence may show to the contrary. That question does address the degree of openmindedness. The second question doesn't seem to disclose any information: lots of closedminded and openminded people would answer "yes", and the question does not distinguish between the two mindsets.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

:: Even if there is strong evidence to support [[Creation]], you can never be 100% sure and I believe it is a sign of open-mindedness to acknowledge the fact that there may be another answer, unlikely as this may be. --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:17, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

:::I see your point, but the revised question does not differentiate between those who are closedminded in their belief in evolution, and those who are openminded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:27, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Then what about this: If there was an absolute proof that either [[evolution]] or [[creation]] is true, would you change your mind ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:42, 5 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I would suggest altering that to say "Is it impossible for there to be absolute proof of evolution, and is it impossible for there to be absolute proof of creation?" (With 1 yes and 1 no counting as yes for the essay)That way people can't go 'sure, I'd believe evolution if there was absolute proof. But it isn't so there can't be absolute proof' - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 19:09, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

== Equivalent? ==
Many of the questions in the test can be rewritten in a reversed form. I am interested to hear people’s views on whether they believe these opposite questions could be substituted for the current ones without affecting the validity of the test. If you feel that these reversed questions would affect validity, then how can they be valid in their current form either? If you don't think it would affect validity, then why not make the test a mixture of conservative and liberal slanted questions?

Two examples
: 1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a liberal approach to education is far more effective for students than a conservative one?
:12. Do you think that evolution ''must not'' have occurred?

== Answers from a liberal Atheist ==
1. It depends on your definitions of "conservative" and "liberal." But generally, any approach to education can be effective at some things and ineffective at others. So no. This question is a bit oddly phrased, though, as the words "resist admitting" assume that the following proposition is true and if someone believes the opposite, they are wrong.
 

2. Of course not. That would be stupid and annoying.
 

3. If something I accepted for over a decade was proven to be false, yes, I would drop it. Same as the first question.
 

4. That depends on what you mean by "Hollywood Values." However, generally, any value system can prove to be harmful. Yes, even the one pushed by this site. In real life, everything is not black and white. That is only in movies. And books.
 

5. Of course not. It could very well be the case. That is an objective fact, and therefore I can not have an opinion on it.
 

6. I am a bit to young for this question to understand what it is referring to, but obviously a wall can be torn down with applied force and lots of heavy machinery.
 

7. Again, to young to know what that is.
 

8. Nothing is impossible. It also depends on what you mean by "authentic." If you mean the claim that the shroud comes from the time it is claimed to have come from, than possibly. if you mean some sort of religious thing, than no, probably not. Nothing is impossible, but many things are improbable.
 

9. This is an odd question. It is also an objective fact, and I can not have an opinion on it. I am also not knowledgeable enough to answer it.
 

10. Not at all. Again objective fact, and again I'm not knowledgeable enough.
 

11. Not necessarily. But I'm not a fan of these types of tests. I don't actually believe the IQ test measures "intelligence" because that word can be used to indicate many things, not just how much information you've crammed into your brain.
 

12. "Evolution" must have occurred, yes, because it is occurring all the time. We've even made it occur. The evidence is to staggering not to believe it happened and continues to happen. You mean the "common descent" theory, however, and the beginning of life is an objective fact. I can not have an opinion on it, and I am not knowledgeable enough to answer the "common descent" part.
 

13. I honestly have no idea what that is, and I'm definitely not knowledgeable enough for it.
 

14. Of course there are things taught in school that are completely false, but the teachers may not know that. I, myself, was taught in elementary school the George Washington story, about him cutting down the cherry tree. I went to a religious school also, so I was taught many myths from the Bible and I was taught that all of the evidence for evolution was fabricated in a big conspiracy. The teachers honestly believed these things. Thus, I do think that there are things taught in schools that are completely false, but I don't think the teachers know that, because they believe everything they teach.
 
15. That, of course, depends on what theories you are talking about. It also depends on what you mean by the "progress" of science. Is science trying to reach some goal? I was under the impression that science exists for the exploration of the world and how it works.
 

16. Socialism and same-sex marriage have absolutely nothing to do with the Olympics. So this question makes no sense.
 

17. Just because someone is an "expert" does not mean they know everything about their topic. It just means that they know a lot more about their topic than the average person. So, of course, "experts" do not have all the answers. However, I would be inclined to go to one if I had a question about their particular field of study, because they would be more knowledgeable about their topic than I would. As for the "best of the public" idea, the idea is extremely vague. However, yes, of course, there are people who are knowledgeable about things that are not experts. Just because someone hasn't gone to school or doesn't have a degree, it doesn't make them not smart. However, I would trust an "expert" more than I would trust some random guy on the street because I assume they know more about their topic than any random person.
 

18. This question is vague and depends largely on what is meant by "read the Bible." It also depends on the definition of reading something. If you think that reading requires you to have read the entire text than no. If you think that reading something requires you to have read any part of the text than yes. However, there really isn't a reason to read the Bible "regularly," any more than there is a reason to read the Koran regularly or the Odyssey regularly.
 

19. This is an objective fact, so I can't have an opinion on it, and I am not knowledgeable enough to answer it.

So according to Conservapedia, this liberal atheist is open-minded. However, I would like to say that some of the questions are asked in such a way that they assume their proposition to be automatically true and every other proposition to be false. This is the case with phrases like: "Do you resist admitting" or "Do you deny." {{unsigned|Iammeiamme}}

:Your conclusion about Conservapedia does not follow. Some of your answers, even when they are a correct "no", are diluted by qualifications to such an extent that they would not receive full credit. Moreover, there is nothing defective about wording like "Do you resist admitting the possibility that ..." (question 1).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:27, 25 November 2011 (EST)

::The qualifications are needed because many of these questions are to vague for a yes or no answer. My answers are quite simply skeptical. I answer with a skeptical and logical mindset. The words "Do you resist admitting" imply that the following statement is absolutely true. Infact, you admitted as much further up. By saying that a proposition is absolutely true, you are not being open-minded. Open-mindedness requires that you might possibly be wrong. That is even a large part of this questionnaire. By having questions that are not open-minded, the open-mindedness test becomes invalid.{{unsigned|Iammeiamme}}

:::Your first 5 out of the 19 questions would get full credit, but after that many of the answers would not. Your answers to 9 and 12, for example, would not get credit. Your answer to question 14 would not receive credit because of its statement that teachers in school "believe everything they teach." Surely some school teachers sometimes teach things they do not believe, such as aspects of evolution (only about 10% of the public believe it as taught in school).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:27, 25 November 2011 (EST)

::::Why not 9 and 12? Or many of the others? You are correct, and I was incorrect, that there are times when teachers teach things they don't believe to be true. However, I would say for the most part, they do teach things they believe to be true. What is your source for that last assertion -"only about 10% of the public believe it as taught in school"-?

== The Questions Slanted Liberally ==
Just for fun:
 
1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a liberal approach to education is far more effective for students than a conservative one?
 
2. If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?
 
3. Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
 
4. Do you resist the possibility that conservative values result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?
 
5. Do you think it is impossible that decreased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?
 
6. When President Ronald Reagan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was possible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?
 
7. Did you think, or still think, that the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") is possible?
 
8. Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is inauthentic?
 
9. Do you think that there must be a purely religious-based explanation (such as creationism) for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?
 
10. Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have stayed the same in the past?
 
11. Do you think that it is possible to measure openmindedness?
 
12. Do you think that evolution must not have occurred?
 
13. Do you think that is possible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?
 
14. Do you believe that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?
 
15. Do you believe that some widely required theories of science may actually impede the progress of science?
 
16. Do you believe that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?
 
17. Do you refuse to consider the possibility that "experts" may have the answers, and that the best of the public may not have valuable insights to which experts are blind?
 
18. Do you think that people should read the Bible regularly?
 
19. Do you believe that because the Earth's orbit and rotation are what they are now, they are not guaranteed to remain stable for billions of years?
 
Same qualifications as the conservative biased version. What is your score?

== Answers from an ex-creationist ==
'''Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a liberal one?'''

''No, there are a number of approaches to education. Any of them could work, experimentation is key. However, I'm not sure the methods of education are necessarily conservative or liberal, different methods have different merits and some appeal more to certain ideologies certainly, but you can't really brand any system of education as being inherently conservative or liberal. ''

'''If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?'''

''No, no rational person, liberal or conservative, would. Though biologically we are programmed to resist change, I would hope I am open-minded enough to accept change. ''

'''Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?'''

''No, appeals to tradition are meaningless. ''

''' Do you resist the possibility that Hollywood values result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?'''

''Hollywood values by the definition presented are personal choices that people are free to make. I personally believe they are harmful, but I do not believe you can impose your will on someone else on the matter. ''

'''Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?'''

That's an incredibly vague question. Increased gun ownership leads to greater guns amongst criminals. I think that guns should come with training of the level required of military personel and police officers, and that they should be controlled so as to keep them in proper hands. Do I think its impossible? No, but it's not conducive.

''' When President Ronald Reagan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?'''

'' Wasn't alive, can't comment''

'''Did you think, or still think, that the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") is impossible?'''

''No, technology is developing at a rapid rate, it's just a matter of time. ''

'''Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is authentic?''

''Not impossible, but incredibly unlikely, the evidence against (fibers, design) is pretty damning''

'''Do you think that there must be a purely material-based explanation (such as magnetism) for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?'''

''If by material-based you mean without God, then yes.''

'''Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?'''

''Most likely, yes. ''

'''Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?'''

''No, but this quiz almost certainly doesn't appear to be a good method.''

'''Do you think that evolution [2] must have occurred?'''

''It has happened, it is happened, it's a continual process that has happened since the beginning of life. ''

'''Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?'''

''I do not know enough about the situation to comment properly.''

'''Do you resist admitting that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?'''

''No, I admit that a lot of what I was taught about God and his existence and his role in the creation of the world. ''

'''Do you deny that some widely required theories of science, such as the theory of evolution, may actually impede the progress of science?[3]'''

''Yes, the theory of evolution is a powerful tool and its role in describing biological processes is incredible.''

'''Do you deny that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?'''

''Yes, such an imposition is preposterous.''

'''Do you refuse to consider the possibility that "experts" may not have all the answers, and that the best of the public may have valuable insights to which experts are blind?'''

''Again a very vague and loaded question. Certainly the more perspectives on a subject, the more insight, but more often than not, credible experts have training and knowledge that the "best of the public" does not (for instance, Lisa Rudley and the autism and vaccine nonsense)''

'''Do you think that if you read parts of the Bible years ago as a child, you can claim to "have read the Bible" and that you have no reason to read it regularly now?'''

''No, certainly it should be studied for its historical significance.''

'''Do you believe that because the Earth's orbit and rotation are what they are now, they are guaranteed to remain stable for billions of years? '''

''No, there is no reason that other anomaly, such as another stronger body of gravity, altering the course of the bodies in question.'' [[User:Jacobsladder|Jacobsladder]] 15:41, 28 December 2011 (EST)

== New Question about Korea ==

I don't see how this question tests open-mindedness: "Do you think it is impossible that North Korea and South Korea will reunite into a single country, without being the result of one invading the other?)"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:Given the current very unfriendly relationship between the two countries, it seems unlikely that the relationship will improve to a point where the two countries will reunite. Additionally, with North Korea slowly becoming more proficient with nuclear weapons, they are becoming more of a threat to the rest of the world, which makes it more likely that another country will have to take a forceful hand with their attitude towards North Korea. The point is, it is unlikely that they will reunite peacefully into a single country. And whether someone thinks that just because an event is unlikely doesn't make it impossible, is a test of openmindedness. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:18, 1 February 2012 (EST)

== A comment on #2 and problems with #20 ==

Firstly, with 2, using an argument you know to be flawed can, in certain situations, be useful. On the rare occasion, I have used it when my purpose is to teach them/make them think more. I would use the flawed argument, knowing the flaws in it, and try to help them find the flaws in the argument. However, in that case I was trying to make them think, rather than convince them I was right.

And with #20, firstly, possible grammar problem, you're comparing one person to two people, so can someone who knows the intricacies of grammar check to make sure it's right, caus it just sounds weird. But more importantly, that question is a test of closed-mindedness, not openmindedness. Firstly, by giving no additional information about any of them, it suggests that if you do not think that a woman who is: straight, a radical Muslim intent on destroying America, a serial killer and abuser of children... is a better mother than a woman who: is gay, attends Church every Sunday, volunteers at a homeless shelter, is charitable and treats everyone and all animals with kindness... then you are closedminded. This interpretation is perfectly allowable under the current form of the question.

Secondly, by effectively suggesting that ALL straight woman are better mothers than ALL gay woman, the question is a test of closedmindedness. Regardless of which you believe is more likely to be a better mother, it is closedminded to think that it is impossible for a gay woman to be a good mother. Openmindedness is about two things: accepting that what you believe, may be wrong, and being willing to change your mind about an issue. This question doesn't address the second (which is fine), however it rejects the first and suggests that if you don't agree with the statement, then you are wrong, because the statement is unquestionable and IS NOT WRONG.

I strongly suggest either changing the question to reflect a test of openmindedness, or removing it entirely. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:43, 1 February 2012 (EST)

== Does this test measure open-mindedness? ==

This questionnaire appears geared towards making "liberals" fail it rather than establishing relative levels of open-mindedness. Consider the first question,

"Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a liberal one?"

Equally, you could pose the question

"Do you resist admitting the possibility that a ''liberal'' approach to education is far more effective for students than a ''conservative'' one?"

and in both cases say that a 'yes' means closed-mindedness and an 'no' means open-mindedness.

If you had a set of questions like that second one (e.g. "Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership ''increases'' the rate of crime?" instead of decreases, "Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is ''fake''?" instead of authentic) you would have a questionnaire that does not find conservatives to be open-minded, but the reverse, that conservatives are closed-minded. --[[User:Thal|Thal]] 11:21, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

:The questions could be reversed, but most conservatives would pass it. For example, most conservatives would answer "no" to your question "Do you think that it is impossible that the [[Shroud of Turin]] is ''fake''?" while most liberals would answer "yes" to the reverse question, "Do you think that it is impossible that the [[Shroud of Turin]] is authentic?"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:35, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

::How about if the questions were, "Do you think that it is impossible that there is no god?", "Do you think that evolution cannot be true?", "Do you think that it is impossible that the theory of relativity is true?", "Do you think that homosexuality cannot be allowed in society?" Wouldn't a conservative answer "yes" to them, and therefore be 'closed-minded'?

::If I am missing the point of all this (maybe a conservative would answer "no" to those questions?), then I'm happy to learn, but what this questionnaire seems to be is a list of things conservatives believe in, and if you do not agree it says you are closed-minded, rather than merely, "not a conservative". --[[User:Thal|Thal]] 11:54, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

== Extremely poor design ==

As someone who actually has training and education in research methodology, survey design, statistics, and data analysis I find this test of "quantifying" open-mindedness insulting to the profession. The author of this test obviously has little to no understanding of proper survey design. At best, I would say that if this test quantifies anything, it's the open-mindedness towards Conservative ideals of Conservapedia's regular visitors. Question #2 is the only question I would accept as a decent measure of actual open-mindedness.

(My use of the terms "error" and "bias" are used strictly in the statistical/research design sense)

Just a sample of the errors include:
A) Biased questions: This test, as another person has mentioned, is designed to make Conservatives appear more open-minded than liberals. If I were to develop a test in direct opposition to this test I would have questions such as, "Do you think it's impossible that Jesus never existed?" or "Do you resist accepting that God doesn't exist?" and so on.....using the same "yes/No" format we can assume that questions such as these would make "Liberals" appear more open-minded (as long as answers are honest).

B) The fact that the author has told us in advance what he considers to be the "correct answers" (I'll use this term since it's obvious that the measure of open-mindedness reflects only conservative ideals). This fact increases greatly the response bias....which means additional survey error to muddle through to find any truth in the analysis of the data.

C)Closed-ended questions that require respondents to provide answers as though they were responding to open-ended questions. Basically, the individual questions are so poorly designed, convoluted, and imbued with biased assumptions that the test becomes even less quantitative and more qualitative as respondents feel necessary to explain their yes/no answers which fail to address the questions sufficiently.

D)Even if the questions truly were quantitative in nature, the obvious sampling bias pretty much makes this test useless outside of Conservapedia.

E)The use of absolute terms such as "Impossible", despite attempts to define it, lead to even more error and bias. Even grade school children are taught to watch out for these types of terms on multiple choice exams ("always" and "never").

F) I'll finish with this although I could go on: This measurement does a very poor job of defining actual open-mindedness. IF you look at the questions and ask yourself, "Do these questions accurately reflect true open-mindedness in its most general sense?" the honest answer is no. Open-mindedness, in this test, reflects only an openness to specific conservative/literal creationist ideals.

Using some of the questions provided, a better design would include questions such as (and these are a bit off the cuff so I will not say these are perfect, perfecting questions like this requires trial and error):
#3) Do you find it difficult to admit when a long held belief is proven wrong? (which can replace a majority of the questions)
#14) Do you find it difficult to admit that what you are taught in school may not be accurate?
#17A) Do you find it difficult to question the validity of expert opinion on subjects you are not familiar with?
#17B) Do you find it difficult to accept the insights of non-experts/laymen on subjects you are not familiar with?

Towards the end of the following research are a set of questions which I feel do a far better job at measuring true open-mindedness. Notice the variation in how questions are asked, enabling a wider interpretation of what open-mindedness means. Also notice how much more sophisticated the statistical analysis is over the simplistic method used on the test provided by Conservapedia which relies on simply adding up yes and no answers without even the most basic weighting method.
http://www.psyc.jmu.edu/assessment/research/pdfs/APS_AOT_Final_Marsh&Pastor.pdf

[[User:Willingham|Willingham]] 10:33, 18 June 2012 (EDT)

== A response to the recent main page answers ==

This is in response to the answers posted by JerryD on the main page, and Andy's scoring of them.

1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a liberal one?
:J - I’m not exactly sure what conservative and liberal approaches to education are, and if the rest of this site is any indication I’d suspect your definition of “liberal education” will be a combination of rather cherry-picked examples of the worst elements along with some strawmen. Besides that, I don’t know how I can resist admitting some ill-defined terms, but if the overall question is “is it possible that a conservative approach to education is better than a liberal one” I’d answer, possibly, sure, depending on the definitions.
:A - OK, one point of credit given.
:Me - Due to the uncertainty of what is meant by a liberal or conservative education, a score of 0/0.

2. If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?
:J - No.
:A - Good. One more point.
:Me - One point.

3. Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
:J - I think everyone ‘’resists’’ changing their long held views. We wouldn’t hold them very strongly if we didn’t. Few people turn on a dime on things they’ve thought for years. If I were convinced about it, after studying the evidence, I would accept that the belief in question is false.
:A - Half-point credit, in light of the equivocation.
:Me - Full point. Resisting changing one's opinion is necessary to have opinions which last for more than 10 seconds. He does suggest that having held the opinion for 10 years wouldn't affect whether he changes his mind or not, the evidence would change his mind.

4. Do you resist the possibility that Hollywood values result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?
:J - “Hollywood values” isn’t exactly well-defined either. If you’re going to define Hollywood by its worst aspects, such as drug use (which exists in every city in the country), then sure. We all know drugs can be quite harmful. Does that make watching a typical Hollywood blockbuster harmful? No. Although most are basically crummy movies these days, but that’s subjective and irrelevant.
:A - No credit here. Hollywood values is worse in many ways than what is typical in many cities.
:Me - Without Hollywood values defined, 0/0

5. Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?
:J - It’s possible, and I believe there have been studies that have shown some evidence for this. There’s also evidence against it, if you look at foreign countries with less gun ownership and less crime. If I had to guess I’d say widespread gun ownership might lead to a modest decrease in things like muggings and robberies, but a modest increase in murder and accidental firearm deaths.
:A - Credit is given because you say it is possible. Note that the rate of accidential firearm deaths is very small.
:Me - Full point.

6. When President Ronald Reagan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down? (Or for those who were not born/not old enough to have an opinion - Do you think it is impossible that North Korea and South Korea will reunite into a single country, without being the result of one invading the other?)
:J - The wall was made of steel and cement, of course it could be torn down. No sane person could think otherwise. At some point in the future its demise was inevitable. Did Reagan cause the wall to be torn down? I’ve seen no evidence for it. Certainly not directly, anyway.
:A - Zero credit because the point of the question is whether it would be politically possible, not physically possible.
:Me - He seems to have missed the point of the question. No reason to penalise that. 0/0

7. Did you think, or still think, that the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") is impossible?
:J - Again, there’s very little that is impossible. SDI was theoretically possible. Was it practical though? From what I know of it, probably not. It was never implemented for a reason.
:A - Zero credit. Lots of things are impossible. The question is not limited to what is "theoretically possible."
:Me - I see nothing wrong with his answer, however because I don't understand Andy's objection, will give 0/0 instead of 1/1.

8. Do you think that it is impossible that the Shroud of Turin is authentic?
:J - Possible, but very unlikely.
:A - Half credit due to the "very unlikely" statement.
:Me - Full point. Nothing wrong with thinking something is possible but unlikely. Really, if he was asked to give a percentage of how likely it is to be authentic, any answer except 0% and 100% should be enough to grant a point.

9. Do you think that there must be a purely material-based explanation (such as magnetism) for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?
:J - I think it is by far the most likely scenario.
:A - Half credit.
:Me - Full point. Same reason as above.

10. Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?
:J - My understanding of the laws of physics seems to indicate this is more or less impossible. It’s possible the laws are wrong, I suppose, and there seems to be zero evidence that this is the case. But, no, I guess it falls a bit short of impossible.
:A - Full credit.
:Me - Full point.

11. Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?
:J - It would be very difficult to in any real accurate and specific way. This test is quite biased. I think it can measured in a vague way.
:A - Half credit - "measured in a vague way"?? Either it can be measured, or it can't.
:Me - Half point. Stating that it would be very difficult to measure in any real accurate or specific way, and then saying that it can be measured in a vague way is enough for me to interpret it as saying it's impossible to measure in a quantitative way.

12. Do you think that evolution must have occurred?
:J - All evidence points to it, so I’d say it has occurred, but it’s not impossible it didn’t.
:A - Full credit because you say it is "not impossible."
:Me - Full point.

13. Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?
:J - I have to admit I know nothing about this, and there is very little in the universe that is 100% impossible, so sure, it’s possible.
:A - Full credit.
:Me - Full point.

14. Do you resist admitting that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?
:J - No. I realize my teachers didn’t always get everything right. They’re human, like the rest of us.
:A - Zero credit. The question asks about teaching known falsehoods. That's not an issue of being "human, like the rest of us."
:Me - 0/0. Missed the point of the question

15. Do you deny that some widely required theories of science, such as the theory of evolution, may actually impede the progress of science?
:J - I’d like to see evidence that they do before condemning them. Overall I’d say they do more good than harm, if that’s the question.
:A - Zero credit.
:Me - No point. Although I'm not confident in my interpretation of his answer. Nothing wrong in wanting to see evidence before condemning a specific theory. I think he means that all theories do more good in progressing science than harm in progressing science.

16. Do you deny that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?
:J - I fail to see how they could. Given some evidence for this hypothesis I could conceivably change my mind, but there seems very little relation between the two subjects, so I can’t envision how one would measurably affect the other.
:A - Zero credit.
:Me - Full point. Says he could change his mind if presented with evidence. Nothing wrong with not seeing how one would affect the other. He doesn't say it is impossible, just that he doesn't personally see how it is possible.

17. Do you refuse to consider the possibility that "experts" may not have all the answers, and that the best of the public may have valuable insights to which experts are blind?
:J - Oh not at all. Experts don’t always get everything right. They can’t, as different experts often have different views on the same subject, and they can’t both be right. A legitimate expert, however, will be in a better position to have the answer on a relevant subject than a non-expert. The best of the public is an intriguing idea that has merit, but deciding who “the best” of the public is is no easy task. I haven’t yet observed them on this site.
:A - Full credit.
:Me - Full point. But with hesitation. He focuses on who is more likely to be right, rather than whether the best of the public can offer ideas or insights which are useful.

18. Do you think that if you read parts of the Bible years ago as a child, you can claim to "have read the Bible" and that you have no reason to read it regularly now?
:J - This seems more of a semantic argument than anything else. Are only people who’ve read the Bible cover to cover (including all the boring lists of laws and who begat whoms) able to really say they’ve read the Bible? The reason to read it regularly is if you want to, or you want a better knowledge of what it says. Those who want to have a reason to read it, those who don’t, don’t.
:A - Zero credit.
:Me - No point. Suggests that wanting a better knowledge of what the Bible says is the only reason non-Christians read the Bible. The Bible can offer interesting and useful ideas or thoughts to non-Christians, which he seems to suggest is impossible. I may be reading more into his response than is reasonable though.

19. Do you believe that because the Earth's orbit and rotation are what they are now, they are guaranteed to remain stable for billions of years?
:J - I don’t think the universe issues guarantees. I believe the laws of physics do indicate the relatively stable orbit, though not necessarily unchanging.
:A - Zero credit. Earth's orbit is unstable.
:Me - Full point. By using the word "relatively", he basically says that over extreme lengths of time, it may not be stable, but for time-scales of interest to us, it is stable. The question doesn't make the distinction between long-term, and short-term, stability.

Andy gave a score of 9.
I give a score of 11.5/13, which is 88%.
- [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 10:39, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

== my answers :) ==

1. No.

2. No.

3. Yeah probably at first, human nature isn't it? but once I realised that I was wrong I would accept that.

4. Not really sure what these are, but judging by the state of the lives of loads of people who work in Hollywood I would think that they do.

5. No I don't think it's impossible. Unlikely and rather counter-intuitive, but not impossible.

6. I wasn't born at the time, and as I grew up in an entirely different political landscape I don't think I could really know what I would have thought. Probably yes, but I don't know.

7. Too long ago, and I'm not from America. From the little I know about it I think that it may have been possible, but impractically expensive? I really don't know.

8. Not impossible, but very unlikely.

9. Not quite sure what is meant by 'purely material-based' here. I think there is a material explanation, but I don't see how that makes it less miraculous or impressive, especially seeing as how in many species the young birds on their first migration will leave slightly later by themselves, and make the journey relying entirely on instinct and some form of navigation.

10. I don't really know much about this one. I suppose it's possible.

11. I think it is possible to measure, though not in a very precise way. (I don't think this test is great though, too political).

12. No.

13. Don't know anything about this one.

14. I was home-schooled, so that's my mum you're talking about :) No I don't think that happens. Call me naive but I think that all the information taught in schools is believed by those responsible. (probably not true for all countries though.)

15. No not really. If evolution for instance turns out to be false then that will have impeded the progress of science i suppose.

16. Yes I do, I really can't see the connection.

17. No. On the whole I would go with the expert opinion though.

18. No. It's important to read the bible. (I don't think this question has much to do with open-mindedness though)

19. I wouldn't say guaranteed, no.

Of the sixteen that I knew anything about I answered 'no' 12 and a half times or maybe 12 times, and 'yes' about three times. I don't know how I would mark the ones I didn't know anything about. Interesting test, though I don't think all the questions are particularly relevant.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 02:01, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== More answers ==

Here are my (JudyJ) answers to this test. I have added a few new questions, and expanded on a few others. These changes are in italics. The numbering is the same as in the original.

*1. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a [[conservative]] approach to education is far more effective for students than a [[liberal]] one?
*''1a. Do you resist admitting the possibility that a [[liberal]] approach to education is far more effective for students than a [[conservative]] one?''
::I don't accept either of these premises in their absolute form. Each side has something to contribute.
*2. If it were proven to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?
::Of course not.
*3. Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
::Of course not.
*4. Do you resist the possibility that [[Hollywood values]] result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?
::Assuming that, by "Hollywood values", you mean drug use, scandalous behavior, and a belief that the rules apply only to other people, of course such things harm the individuals involved and other people. People in show business are often associated with these attitudes, but they can be found everywhere.
*5. Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?
*''5a. Do you think it is impossible that decreased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?''
*''5b. Do you think it is impossible that there is no significant correlation between gun ownership and crime rates?''
::Crime rates depend on many many things, as a study of historical crime rate statistics shows. If have seen comparisons of crime rates and gun ownership rates for a number of countries, and there is no conclusion that one can draw in either direction.
*6. When President [[Ronald Reagan]] told Mr. [[Gorbachev]] to tear down the Berlin Wall, would you have thought that it was politically impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?
::Given that this is an event that actually happened, it isn't a good test of openmindedness. See my new question about Korea at the end.
*7. Did you think, or still think, that the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] ("Star Wars") is impossible?
::It's really a question of whether it would have been feasible. It is possible, but may well not have been economically reasonable.
*8. Do you think that it is impossible that the [[Shroud of Turin]] is authentic?
::I don't know.
*9. Do you think that there ''must'' be a purely material-based explanation (such as magnetism) for remarkable [[homing]] and [[migration]] behavior of birds and butterflies?
::I don't know, though my scientific sensibilities suggest that a scientific explanation will be found. This question appears to by attempting to elicit a response similar to the "intelligent design" position that some people take on biological evolution. I don't take such a position.
*10. Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?
::It could have been, but it's confounded by things like the expansion of the universe. Same meter sticks? Same clocks? What does that even mean? We do know, from spectral lines of distant stars, that the properties of the universe have not changed significantly in its "recent" (say, 10 billion years) history.
*11. Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?
::I have no idea, really. I'm just going along with the hypothesis.
*12. Do you think that [[evolution]] ''must'' have occurred?
::Yes. To avoid filling this page with too much text, I have written an extensive essay on the subject on my [[User:JudyJ|user page]].
*13. Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?
::This question is a little more complicated than meets the eye, since Newton's law was ''stated'' to be inverse square, so any deviation would not be Newton's law. Restating that as "would Newton's law, as modified to have an exponent of 2.00000001 (or whatever) better explain the universe? It would not. This theory was advanced by Asaph Hall and Simon Newcomb, with exponent 2.0000001574, in the late 19th century, to explain the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury. ''It fails for the Moon and the other planets'', and was discarded shortly thereafter. I am not so openminded as to accept that it might nevertheless by correct.
*14. Do you resist admitting that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?
::Absolutely not. I could tell you some doozies from my 2nd grade teacher, and from my 8th grade science teacher. I do not know whether those teachers actually believed what they were saying.
*15. Do you deny that some widely required theories of science, such as the [[evolution|theory of evolution]], may actually impede the progress of science?<ref>
*[http://creation.com/back-problems-how-darwinism-misled Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers]
*[http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins Backwardly wired retina “an optimal structure” New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins]
*[http://creation.com/stuart-burgess-interview-biomimetics Biomimetics - Expert engineer eschews “evolutionary design”]
*[http://creation.com/design-features-questions-and-answers Biometrics - Examples of Scientists copying nature]
*[http://creation.com/cutting-out-a-useless-vestigial-argument Cutting out a useless vestigial argument]
*[http://creation.com/junk-dna-functions More nails in the coffin of ‘junk DNA’]
*[http://creation.com/lingering-death-junk-dna The lingering death of junk DNA]
*[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/09/questions-for-evolutionists.html Questions for evolutions - Vox Day]</ref>
::It occasionally happens that some theories harm overall scientific knowledge. The Ptolemaic universe, "cold fusion", and various proposals relating to biology, medicine, genetics, and geology come to mind. But the problems seem to get straightened out by further study.
*16. Do you deny that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?
::I know of no reason to believe there could be any correlation.
*17. Do you refuse to consider the possibility that "experts" may not have all the answers, and that the [[best of the public]] may have valuable insights to which experts are blind?
::Of course not.
*18. Do you think that if you read parts of the Bible years ago as a child, you can claim to "have read the Bible" and that you have no reason to read it regularly now?
::This seems to be a question of how one interprets the semantic meaning of "have read ...", rather than one of openmindedness about any factual matter. I believe that saying that one "has read" something should mean that one has read it in its entirety, or nearly so. In that sense, I have not read the Bible, though I have read many parts of it, on my own and in various Bible study classes in college and in my church.
*19. Do you believe that because the Earth's orbit and rotation are what they are now, they are guaranteed to remain stable for billions of years?
::Of course there are no guarantees; another star could totally disrupt the Solar system in then next few million years, but we have (at present) no way of predicting such things. I am aware that Young Earth Creationists sometime make exaggerated claims about the instability of the Earth's orbit, apparently in order to advance a claim that the orbit could not have been stable for more than a few thousand years. So I'll say that there is extremely good reason to believe that it has been stable for a few billion years, and will continue to be stable for a few billion more years. There is compelling geological and biological evidence that the Earth has been at roughly the same distance from a star with roughly the luminosity of the Sun for, say, 3 billion years. Also, extremely precise computer simulations<ref>https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:UasEK0r-uY8J:groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/keithw/Sussman-Wisdom.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESglombZ-xHvE-G9KSVHXBN-ZBdwKxZetIOnM5ATh6pL5QJsdj2ZfHrAYzrjVBr-6TPPKCfAazSBhixS04mA90GQ4e00385sQwu0U1qWCf26C4iKp515jvlSjPaa79fVF_pIKBI0&sig=AHIEtbTIS_9STbbpxZN5LDIIycucGuGKIw</ref> over a period of a few hundred million years into the future show that, while the Lyupanov time scale is only a few million years, the overall instability is quite small over that time frame.

''Here are a few questions that I have added. The one about Korea was added and discussed on the talk page, but was removed. I believe it is a better question than the one about the Berlin wall, because it refers to a situation whose outcome we do not know.''

*20. Do you deny the possibility that North and South Korea will someday be united, without a war?
::Absolutely not.
*21a. Do you deny the possibility that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe?
::Absolutely not.
*21b. Do you deny the possibility that ''no'' intelligent life exists anywhere else in the universe?
::Absolutely not.
*22a. Do you deny the possibility that special and general relativity are a substantially correct explanation for how the universe works at non-microscopic (not quantum scale) levels?
::Absolutely not.
*22b. Do you deny the possibility that relativity is ''not'' a correct explanation?
::I believe that future developments will eventually supplant the 20th century notion of special and general relativity. But I totally accept it as the correct scientific paradigm for its time, just as Newtonian mechanics was the correct scientific paradigm for its time.

Talk:Higgs boson

2012-07-12T02:16:02Z

JudyJ: /* Is it real? Is it the Higgs? */ new section

because of the recent announcement, I deleted the "scientists may announce as early as july 2012" bit and replaced it with what I hope is a relatively clear, concise update on the status of the research.--[[User:Guitarsniper|Guitarsniper]] 18:46, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Somebody needs to figure out where, if anywhere, the capital letters go. ==

Higgs Boson? Higgs boson? Boson? bosun? You guys are all over the place on this one. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 17:01, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
:"Higgs" is a proper name of an individual, so it will be capitalized; "boson" (correct spelling) is the name of a thing/object, and it is not capitalized. Make any corrections to reflect this. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:05, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

== Is it real? Is it the Higgs? ==

I may be confused, but I think a recent edit may be wrong. I'm not an expert on this, and my knowledge comes from the popular press. But I thought that what they announced, with 5 sigma / 1 in a million possibility of being a fluke was that ''the blip in the data at 126 Gev is real'', and hence that there is a particle in there. This was the announcement that was made with such fanfare on the 4th. The particle has the properties that the standard model predicts for the Higgs, that it decays into bottom quarks, etc. etc. This makes it very likely, ''but not 5 sigma likely'', that it actually is the Higgs. So the announcement came in two parts -- it is a particle, for sure, and it is the Higgs, most likely. A recent edit went in the opposite direction. Since I'm not an expert, I'll defer to LucoDaw on this. But please have a second look at this issue. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 22:16, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

Higgs boson

2012-07-07T21:48:24Z

JudyJ: More info. Can we get a picture of Peter Higgs?

A '''Higgs boson''' is a theorized elementary particle whose existence is predicted by the [[Standard Model]] of particle physics. It serves a key role in explaining the origin of mass of other elementary particles of the Standard Model. It has recentely been observed in nature, confirmed to 4 standard deviations by the Large Hadron Collider, and 5 standard deviations (which is equivalent to a certainty of approximately 99.9999667%) by ATLAS - particle accelerators based at [[CERN]] in Switzerland. Physicist Leon Lederman coined the term "God Particle" to describe the Higgs boson.<ref>Lederman L., The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?, New York:Dell, 1993</ref>. (This was unfortunate; most people, including essentially all physicists, abhor that term, as it suggests some religious or supernatural properties for the particle. It's just another particle. An important part of the Standard Model, but really no more important than the W and Z bosons.) The term seems to be favored only by headline-grabbing authors of popular news sources.

On July 4, 2012, Physicists at [[CERN]] announced the observation of a particle whose properties are consistent with mathematical predictions relating to the Higgs Boson. However, CERN has yet to definitively state that the particle they observed is, in fact, the Higgs.<ref>[http://io9.com/5923494/what-todays-higgs-boson-discovery-really-means?]</ref> The particle cannot, technically, be confirmed to exist with certainty - and therefore the best that can be said is a new particle has been discovered, the observed properties of the particle are consistent with those predicted of Higgs boson. The process now begins to determine the precise mechanism by which the Higgs boson confers mass, as its existence has been confirmed to the level of accuracy deemed necessary to constitute discovery. That level of accuracy is the "5 sigma test", that says that the probability that the discovery was a statistical fluke is less than one in a million.

== Overview ==
The Higgs Boson is a [[Boson]], whose group includes other fundamental building blocks of the universe, such as protons and photons. The higgs boson, however, is unique in that it allows mass, under the Higgs theory, in the Standard Model of Relativity. It is believed to be around 126 GeV (Gigaelectronvolt) in mass. Aside from the Higgs Boson, there should also be the [[Graviton]], which will help explain why there is mass.<ref>http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Higgs+particle+what+what+does/6881979/story.html</ref>
===2012 CERN discovery===
In July 2012 CERN announced evidence of discovery of a boson with an energy level and other properties consistent with those expected in a Higgs boson. The available data raised a high statistical likelihood that the Higgs boson had been detected. <ref>http://press.web.cern.ch/press/background/B01-Higgs_en.html</ref> This high statistical likelihood is due, in part, to the separate obtaining by two distinct teams of data within the realm of statistical error for the predicted properties of the Higgs.<ref>[http://io9.com/5923494/what-todays-higgs-boson-discovery-really-means?]</ref>

==Reaction in the popular press and "blogosphere"==
Normally, popular reaction to such a discovery, other than by scientists, is rather muted. For example, high-temperature superconductivity, while important (it's the reason why MRI scans are so common), has not captured the public imagination the way the Higgs boson has. The difference is presumably the mystical properties associated with it in the popular imagination by the phrase "God particle".

Perhaps spurred by the seeming religious significance of the phrase, some bloggers and authors have apparently gone out of their way to disparage the discovery.
*[http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/07/06/creation/higgs-boson-so-what/], written by a Conservapedia author.
*"It will certainly be amusing if it turns out that the scientific media is reading the tea leaves wrong and CERN is summoning famous particle physicists to Switzerland in order to announce the failure of the Standard Model. But that won't be half so hilarious as if their announcement of the proof of Higgs boson is eventually followed by a reluctant admission that it doesn't actually exist in spite of all their sigmas." written by Thomas Beale, a blogger for [[Vox Day]].<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/07/mailvox-by-george-theyve-got-it.html Mailvox: By George, they've got it]</ref>

Other bloggers quickly responded to the latter, with statistical evidence.
*"Ignorance is Blitz" from science writer Phil Plait.

Some people may believe that this particle proves or disproves the existence of God. That's rubbish, of course. No scientific discovery proves or disproves the existence of God. An extensive discussion of this may be found [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-clayton-phd/relationship-between-scie_b_1653976.html?utm_hp_ref=religion here].

Scientists at ATLAS have confirmed that there is a 99.99996% likelihood that the July 2012 particle is real. Whether it '''is''' the Higgs boson is largely a matter of semantics, and will have to wait until its properties are elucidated more.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://press.web.cern.ch/press/background/B01-Higgs_en.html] A short, if jargon filled overview on the Higgs Boson.
*[http://www.carlgallups.com/godparticle.html "God particle"] by [[PPsimmons]]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20041118.shtml ''BBC Radio 4: In Our Time " Higgs Boson - the search for the God particle"'']

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Quantum Mechanics]]

Dictatorship

2012-06-18T13:17:49Z

JudyJ: revert vandalism. can someone block this guy?

A '''dictatorship''' (also called an '''autocracy''') is a political system in which a single person (the dictator) has absolute power, because no legal process exists by which the leader can be removed from office against his will. Many ancient political systems were effectively dictatorships, although the term is usually used only in the modern context, where [[democracy]] exists as an alternative.

In modern usage "dictatorship" has developed an unfortunate and unnecessary negative connotation. God blesses dictators provided that they are justly God-fearing:

<blockquote>
"''He who rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God''. And he shall be like the light of the morning when the sun rises, a morning without clouds, like the tender grass springing out of the earth, by clear shining after rain." (2 Sam 23:3-4)
</blockquote>

<blockquote>"Select capable men from all the people -- ''men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain'' -- and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens." (Exod 18:21) </blockquote>

<blockquote>“When good people run things, everyone is glad.” (Proverbs 29:2)</blockquote>

<blockquote>“A nation will prosper when its ruler is mature, and its leaders don't party too much.” (Ecclesiastes 10:17)</blockquote>

<blockquote>"Now therefore, be wise, O Kings; Be instructed, you judges of the earth. ''Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling''." (Ps 2:10-11)
</blockquote>

The [[Greek]] [[philosopher]] [[Socrates]] approves the Philosopher-King as an improvement over [[democracy]] in [[Plato]]'s influential book [[The Republic]]. [[Solomon]] of [[Israel]] and [[Li Quan Yew]] of [[Singapore]] are examples of blessed dictators in the ancient world and modern world respective<ref>[http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive/index.php?display_article=vn210singaporeed Singapore Leads the Good Life Under a Benevolent Dictator]</ref>

{{Dictatorship-democracy-Hoover}}

==Examples of bad dictators==

*[[China]]
*[[North Korea]]
*The former [[Soviet Union]] under [[Stalin]] and [[Lenin]]
*[[Nazi Germany]]
*Communist [[Romania]]
*[[Cuba]]
*[[Zimbabwe]]
*[[Cambodia]] under [[Pol Pot]]
*[[Mubarak]] of [[Egypt]]

==Dictatorship in Fiction==
Most often for dystopian or bleak futures, dictatorships are the governing systems, such as in [[Ayn Rand]]'s Anthem and [[Atlas Shrugged]], George Orwell's [[Nineteen Eighty-Four]], Ray Bradbury's [[Fahrenheit 451]] or Aldous Huxley's [[Brave New World]].

<references />
[[Category:Forms of Government]]
[[Category:Dictatorships]]

Health care

2012-06-18T13:16:43Z

JudyJ: revert vandalism. can someone block this guy?

'''Health care''' is the prevention, treatment, and management of [[illness]] and the preservation of mental and physical well being. It usually involves preventive medicine as well as [[drugs]] and [[surgery]].

In the [[United States of America]], people pay for [[health]] care using [[insurance]]. In other countries throughout the world, the governments use tax revenue as a method of providing insurance ([[socialized medicine]]). This has the effect of generally less efficient health care, as well as providing a disincentive to work.

Here are remarkable government statistics on health care:

* As the largest industry in 2006, health care provided 14 million jobs—13.6 million jobs for wage and salary workers and about 438,000 jobs for the self-employed.
* 7 of the 20 fastest growing occupations are health care related.
* Health care will generate 3 million new wage and salary jobs between 2006 and 2016, more than any other industry.<ref>http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs035.htm</ref>
* In 2005, health care spending was 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense.<ref>California Health Care Foundation. Health Care Costs 101</ref>
* The annual healthcare costs of obesity could be as high as 147 billion dollars for 2008. The medical costs for an obese person are 42 per cent higher than for a person of normal weight.<ref>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/printerfriendlynews.php?newsid=158948</ref>
*With 19 million sexually transmitted diseases in the United States — almost half occur among the 14-to-25 age group — the cost to the health care system in 2008 was $15 billion a year.<ref>Dr. Kevin Fenton of the CDC</ref>
* The monthly medical cost for people with HIV from diagnosis until death in optimal HIV care averages to be $2,100. The lifetime (now 24.2 years avg.) HIV care cost per persons is now $618,900 per person.<ref>[http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/printerfriendlynews.php?newsid=55870]</ref>
* Federal budget funding for AIDS treatment and care in America in 2009 totaled 24.8 billion. Medicare spending on HIV totaled $4.5 billion in 2008, with four in ten people living with HIV and who were receiving care being covered by Medicaid.<ref>Kaiser Family Foundation (2009, February) ''Medicaid and HIV/AIDS Fact sheet''</ref> The numbers of people living with HIV grows by around 56,000 every year.<ref>Hall, H.I. et al (2008, 6th August) 'Estimation of HIV incidence in the United States' JAMA 300(5)</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18677024</ref>

==Politics of health care==

[[Heritage Foundation]] expert Robert Moffitt observed:
*Liberal candidates generally embrace expanding government programs. Expanding government control over the financing and delivery of medical services will guarantee even bigger bureaucracy, higher taxes, and increasingly detailed regulations governing the delivery of care. Conservative candidates generally emphasize the need to re-energize the market and make individuals and families the key decision-makers in the system. [http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/08/09/couricandco/entry3152298.shtml]

==Universal health care==

On the morning of March 23, 2010, President Obama signed America's first universal health care bill into law, after it was passed, 220 to 212, by the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives. The bill is expected to extend coverage to 32 million Americans, and will ban will insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions.

Congress has never required Americans to purchase anything before, and most [[conservatives]] see this as a violation of the [[Constitution]]. Heritage Institute scholars Randy Barnett, Nathaniel Stewart, and Todd F. Gaziano state,

{{cquote|Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to mandate that an individual enter into a contract with a private party or purchase a good or service...Therefore, because this claim of power by Congress would literally be without precedent, it could only be upheld if the Supreme Court is willing to create a new constitutional doctrine.<ref>[http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/12/Why-the-Personal-Mandate-to-Buy-Health-Insurance-Is-Unprecedented-and-Unconstitutional ''Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional''], December 9, 2009</ref>}}

==See also==

*[[Health insurance]]
*[http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427 ''Denver Post'', Debunking Canadian Health Care, 6/7/2009].

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Medicine]]

Militant gays

2012-06-18T13:15:28Z

JudyJ: revert vandalism. can someone block this guy?

'''Militant gays''' is a term to describe the intolerant behavior of [[homosexual activist]]s that seek to intimidate, suppress, vandalize, and assault anybody that opposes their [[homosexual]] movement. Militant gays seek civil rights, [[same-sex marriage|marriage for their same-sex partners]], adoption of children, and federal and state benefits. They try to indoctrinate younger generations, organize protests to further their agenda and oppose traditional family values. Harmless Christians are almost always their target. <ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09b/ParkStreetChurch_0428/index2.html Gay activists terrorize Boston church] Mass Resistance, May 1, 2009</ref>

Militant gays have powerful allies including [[Democrats]], Hollywood, Big Media and last but not least lawyers. When they are denied their agenda by legal means or through the [[democratic]] process, the results are mob assaults, death threats <ref>[http://www.thevoicemagazine.com/society/607-gay-hate-crimes-against-churches.html Gay Hate Crimes against Churches?] The Voice Magazine</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=81310 Sparks fly as 'gay' activist mob swarms Christians] WND.com, November 17, 2008
</ref> and vandalism. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=41858 San Francisco Catholic Church Attacked by Pro-Homosexual Marriage Vandals] CNSNews.com, January 13, 2009</ref>

==Examples of morally offensive, anti-American behavior==
The radical homosexual anarchist group known as "Bash Back! planned for over a month the assault on the Mt. Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan. November 9, 2008 a band of about 30 homosexuals stormed the church during services shouting “Jesus was a homo” on a megaphone and carrying an upside-down pink cross. They distributed fliers to passersby, threw condoms at parishioners and set off the fire alarms. <ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111104.html Homosexualist Anarchists Storm Michigan Church During Sunday Service] Lifesitenews.com, November 11, 2008</ref> Catholic League president [[Bill Donohue]] responded, ''“This is urban [[fascism]] come to America’s heartland."''

Mass Resistance has compiled a list of militant gay actions in the wake of California's successful [[Proposition 8]] campaign. <ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08c/Prop8/church_attacks.html Mormons singled out for special wrath] MassResistance.org, November 13, 2008</ref>

:More than 200 protesters screamed and chanted in front of the Catholic [[Cathedral]] of Our Lady of the Angels in [[Los Angele]]s during Sunday services, intimidating families.

:In Palm Springs, an enraged crowd of homosexual activists attacked an elderly woman carrying a cross.

:Pastor [[Rick Warren]]'s Saddleback Church was targeted, a [[swastika]] constructed. Same situation occurred targeting parishioners at a [[Catholic church]] in Riverside, Ca.

:A disgusting anti-[[Mormon]] TV ad was broadcast across California, portraying LDS missionaries invading a home of lesbians.

:Several thousand [[homosexual]] activists rioted at a Mormon temple in the Los Angeles

:Lesbians parked a van with a big sign "Bigots" in front of a Mormon family's house (parents and five kids) near [[San Francisco]].

:A Mormon church near [[Sacramento]] was spray-painted with "No on 8" .

:A Sacramento theater director was forced to resign from his job after it was revealed that he had given a $1000 donation to the Yes on Prop 8 committee.

:There were instances of cars vandalized with Hate 8 engraved with a knife.

Gay activists have disrupted and viciously vandalized churches nationwide for their stances against gay "marriage."<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/blogs/liberty/2010/05/churches-vandalized-ransacked-and-threatened-with-disruption-27/ Churches Vandalized, Ransacked, and Threatened with Disruption]</ref>

==See Also==
[[Christian persecution]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

==External Links==
* [http://store.nicenecouncil.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=527 Shaky Town: Homosexuality & the City of San Francisco]

{{liberalism}}

Uranus (mythology)

2012-06-18T13:13:18Z

JudyJ: revert vandalism

[[Image:The Mutiliation of Uranus by Saturn.jpg|thumb|400px|''The Mutilation of Uranus by Cronos'': by Giorgio Vasari and Cristofano Gherardi]]'''Uranus''' is the [[Latin]]ized form of the [[Greek]] word for sky; Ouranos (Οὐρανός). According to [[Hesiod]]'s ''Theogony'', Uranus is one of the primordial deities and is personified as both the son and husband of [[Gaia]] (Mother Earth). He was overthrown by his son, [[Cronus]].

Most of the Greek gods owe their ancestry to Uranus and Gaia.

{{Nb mythology greece}}

Lie

2012-06-18T13:11:00Z

JudyJ: revert vandalism

A '''lie''' is the deliberate fabrication or misrepresentation of the truth.

==Lie by Omission==

A '''lie by omission''' is a statement in which everything that is said may be factually true, but that is still deceptive because material information is omitted.<ref>[http://www.fedupusa.org/2012/03/lie-by-omission-bernanke/ Lie by Omission (Bernanke)]</ref> For example, if a murderer who stabbed his victim denies his crime by saying he "did not shoot the victim", then this is technically truthful, because he stabbed the victim. However, it implies that he did not kill the victim, which is untrue.

==Lying in Religion==

Lying is prohibited by [[God]] in the [[Ten Commandments]]; Revelation 21:8 states that all liars will go to [[hell]].
[[Satan]] is described in many [[religion]]s as the Father of Lies.

==See Also==
*[[Cherry picking]]
*[[Deceit]]
*[[Half-truth]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Deceit]]
[[Category:Ethics]]

Talk:Second Law of Thermodynamics

2012-06-14T04:51:51Z

JudyJ:

{{unprotected|19 March 2007|Tsumetai}}
== Protection and other issues ==

The trend towards protecting articles by users in edit conflicts is worrisome. Furthermore, the protected version is simply wrong. One of the Conservapedia Commandments is that everything should be sourced. I therefore would very much like to know if there is any source for the claim that "he Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum" This statement is wrong at multiple levels- the 2nd Law is about closed systems (or can be stated about open systems with a some tweaking of the consequent), it says nothing about the universe. Furthermore, tending towards a maximum doesn't even mean that the entropy levels can't decrease. For example, the sequence, 1,3,2,5,4,7,6,9,8... tends towards infinity but is not an increasing sequence. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 04:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Second law also says nothing about an upper bound to the entropy of a system; the entropy of the Universe could increase without limit, in principle, making the 'maximum' part wrong too.

:To be fair to Philip, the increase of the Universe's entropy ''is'' a tendency, not an absolute. The total entropy of an isolated system can decrease; it's just hugely improbable on the scales we're used to dealing with. Quantum effects can lead to a decrease in entropy; one has to deal with a very small system over short periods of time to actually notice this, however. Arbitrarily large decreases in entropy are also possible, given sufficient time. This is true whether one is discussing the fluctuation theorems of QM, or good old-fashioned classical systems.

:But these are not, strictly speaking, parts of the second law. Second law doesn't say anything about tendency. The rest of physics just says that second law is not absolute. So I don't think using the word 'tends' in the definition is very useful.

:The main problem with the article is, of course, the part about evolution, which as Horace says is just wrong, and painfully so. It's a seductive argument to the layman; after all, entropy is all about order and disorder, and evolution clearly requires the production of order. Right?

:Wrong, of course. The second law of '''thermo'''dynamics is a statement about '''thermodynamic''' quantities; 'order' is not one. One can choose to ''define'' the term 'order' in thermodynamic terms, in which case the statement that the Universe must become, on net, more disordered over time is true, for certain definitions. But the price for that is rejecting one's intuitive understanding of what constitutes 'order' and 'disorder,' and going with the maths. By a thermodynamic definition of order, my hot chocolate is self-organizing as we speak. Therein lies the danger of describing esoteric physics in terms which carry the baggage of their lay definition. Better to stick with entropy, and check one's prejudices at the door.

:Perhaps the simplest way to illustrate this is with a different statement of the second law; the Clausius statement, which reads:

::It is impossible to construct a heat engine which, operating in a cycle, produces no effect other than the transfer of a quantity of heat from a colder to a hotter body.

:Now, precisely which part of evolution violates ''that''? This version of the second law makes it abundantly clear that we're talking about a specific, mathematically rigorous statement about heat flow, not some general philosophical statement about order and chaos. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:51, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Oh, yes, I forgot to weigh in on the page protection issue. Tonya Harding strategy, right?

:A while ago, I [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Page_protection_policy suggested to ASchlafly] that a written policy on when page protection should be used, and for how long it should last would be helpful. Anyone else agree? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:58, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== The following is incorrect ==

From the article:

"It is impossible for the total entropy of an isolated system to decrease, therefore the universe is becoming more and more disordered. In this way the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution."

The first sentence is true, but the second is false. Evolution does not cause the total entropy in the universe to decrease, only local variations. By analogy, a fridge does not cool the universe, only a small part of it at the expense of the rest. Please correct this clear error to avoid the increasing levels of criticisms being levelled at this wiki. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:45, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:To add my thoughts on this: there are two errors in this article. First, the second law ''only'' applies to ''isolated'' systems, not to systems that are merely closed, let alone open. Then it becomes clear that the "disproving" of evolution by referring to the second law is severely flawed. There is nothing against a local decrease in entropy, as long as it is balanced by at least as large an increase elsewhere. Moreover, the assumption that evolution is directly linked to a decrease in thermodynamic entropy is not immediately obvious. I agree with Nematocyte that in its present state, this article will just serve to invite more criticism. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 09:16, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Strictly speaking, second law applies to all systems; for instance, consider the Clausius statement, which I posted up the page. No mention of an isolated system there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That not what my stat.mech. text says ;-). Let's put it this way: the ''entropy'' formulation only applies to isolated systems. In fact, I think that the heat engine in the Clausius formulation should itself be taken as isolated. If we allow it to be (thermally or otherwise) coupled to anything else than a hot and a cold "temperature bath", I think we could make the heat flow up the temperature gradient, at the expense of course of something happening outside the engine. Of course, these thermal reservoirs are abstractions, etc. etc. Anyway, here as well, either we should take the system (engine) as isolated, or we should take it as the entire universe. Both cases are not going to help disprove evolution at any rate. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 12:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I think even the entropy formulation will work with open systems, so long as one takes care to quantify the entropy flow through the boundary. The requirement then becomes that entropy decrease within the boundary is no greater than the net entropy flow out of the system through the boundary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I think it's effectively the same as looking at an isolated system made out of two parts, inside and outside, and applying the second law to the total system. But what you propose should indeed work. I hadn't thought of doing it that way. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Absolutely; you can always expand the boundary of an open system to obtain an isolated one, in principle. But it's very useful to be able to work with open systems, if the boundary terms can be computed, since it allows one to ignore entropy generation in the environment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Time to unprotect ==

OK, it's been over a week now, and no one has attempted to defend the inclusion of such rubbish. Might we have the article unprotected so that those of us who actually understand elementary thermodynamics can fix it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Nothing doing sir, the numbskulls are the experts. Who said Sri Lanka became independent in the 1970s, none other than the owner of this site! [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 02:12, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Ressurection a violation? ==

I think we should add a section about the resurrection of Jesus and that it "technically" violates the second law of thermodynamics, but that since it was a miracle, it does not need to adhere to the second law. Thoughts?
:...*blinks* Are there sources that are actually saying that? *honestly curious* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]]

:I think the latter part is pretty obvious, and negates the need for the former. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Gonna back Tsumetai up on this one. Also, it's shocking and appalling that this article is protected while containing such tripe in the content of it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Not to mention the fact that in the ten days since criticisms were first raised, no one who supports the article in its current state has bothered to defend it.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. I'll leave a message on the protecting admin's Talk page, maybe it'll help. Talking on here doesn't seem to have any impact. =/ --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, of course. Many intellectuals here! Long live the stone age numbskull army!!! [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 02:11, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==This law and evolution==

Timothy Wallace wrote:

*Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).

*Beginning with the “Big Bang” and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationship—down to every atom, molecule, and beyond—is the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law. [http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp]

Comments? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Its a considerable misunderstanding. Points:
::*The second law refers to the flow of heat, it is unclear how exactly that translates into "disorder" and "order" when applied to something like life.
::*The second law refers to closed systems, open systems are a much more complex processes and the "law" does not apply cleanly here. Life and Earth are open systems.
::*Evolution is essentially a favored random walk, these systems are able to produce violations of "disorder" all the time. For example any [[Monte Carlo method]] algorithm demonstrates this beautifully, you can reach local "maximum" and avoid "minimums" by using evolutionary algorithms and many other variations on the theme.
::*Complexity theory and Self-organizing systems also routinely violate the maxim that order can not be created from disorder. The sorts of things needed to produce an SOS or complex system are just the kinds of things we find in life.

:Life is not a good place to be trying to appeal a mathematical description of heat. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, applying the second law to evolution reflects a plain misunderstanding. Beings today are not "more perfect" than those that came before. Greater "perfection" may be a violation of the idea of entropy. However, evolved organisms are not more "perfect" than earlier organisms, since Darwin's point is that there is no biological level of "perfection." Evolved organisms don't violate entropy anymore than ''older'' organisms (a 20 year old relative to a 10 year old) do!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:02, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ames, you're disagreeing with one of the best Renaissance minds, [[William Shakespeare]]:
:*"What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals! ". - ([[Hamlet]], Act II, Scene II).

:Now, how does Evolution explain man evolving through an unguided process from one-celled organisms? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Shakespeare is not a scientist. Science and art are different. I realize they may not be for creationists, which is shocking and kind of funny. But they are different in the real world.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Discuss here before deleting information ==

OK. I deleted the "three types of systems the Second Law can apply to," because it only applies to closed systems. I also deleted the claim that it disproves evolution and relativity, because it doesn't. Evolution is nonsense, but isn't disproved by the Second Law because EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM. As for relativity, the Second Law has no connection to it at all. This article is about one of the key laws of science, and if it's blatant nonsense the credibility of the whole site suffers. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:47, 16 February 2012 (EST)

:There is no such thing as a perfectly closed system, so your attempt to limit the important Second Law to closed systems is misplaced. The Second Law is far more meaningful than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 16 February 2012 (EST)
::Irrelevant. The Second Law only applies to closed systems. If a system isn't closed then energy can be added, thus reducing entropy. That is the MEANING of the Second Law. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:52, 16 February 2012 (EST)
:::OK, give me a statement of the Second Law that works in an open system. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:53, 16 February 2012 (EST)

::::Your approach would appear to limit the Second Law to something that doesn't exist. It's more meaningful than that. Its entry here explains its insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 16 February 2012 (EST)
:::::No ''ideal gas'' exists either, yet the Ideal Gas Law only applies to this non-existent hypothetical gas. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 00:00, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::The Second Law isn't an ''insight''. It's a description of energy available for work in a closed system. It doesn't have some deep ''meaning'' that can be applied to whatever you like. The Second Law is an accurate description of entropy (note: ''entropy'', not ''disorder'') in a closed system, and if ever a closed system is found then rest assured that overall entropy will not decrease inside it. But to say it disproves evolution is nonsense, especially when you yourself admit that Earth is NOT a closed system! --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:05, 17 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::And your point is ....? Attempts to limit the Ideal Gas Law to perfectly ideal gases would be misguided also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::Uh what? How can the Ideal Gas law be applied to something that isn't an ideal gas? --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:06, 17 February 2012 (EST)

:::::::::The Ideal Gas Law has insights that extend beyond ideal gases. Ditto for the Second Law with respect to closed systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::::OK then, tell me an "insight" that the Second Law can bring to a system that is ''not'' closed. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:14, 17 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::The entry explains this well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:25, 17 February 2012 (EST)
After going back and re-reading the article a few times, I think I know where the confusion lies with some editors. It appears that the article is conflating the thermal definition of entropy with the information theory definition of entropy. This conflation allows the topic of "disorder" to arise. Which has absolutely nothing to do with thermaldynamics. The basic definition of thermal entropy is simply a measure of energy that is unusable to perform work in a system. How a law that breaks down in layman's terms to: "heat won't travel from a cooler body to a hotter body without an additional input of energy" or "no process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body" can be used to "disprove" evolution or relativity escapes me. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 02:19, 17 February 2012 (EST)

:Perhaps [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth#Major earthquakes are doubling every 40 years? |this discussion]] sheds some light on Aschlafly's misconception of the 2nd law. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:27, 17 February 2012 (EST)

The thing is, is that there is a link between thermodynamics and disorder. This is the tour de force result of statistical thermodynamics vs classical thermodynamics - i.e. that the macroscopic quantity which we can measure called "entropy" is related to the number of possible microstates the system can explore. As has been correctly pointed out, the problems start when we directly equate this with "information", or entropy as defined in information theory i.e. "Shannon entropy". This is an analogous concept, based on the fundamental information content of a system. But there isn't an equivalence between information-theoretic entropy and thermodynamic entropy. In the actual physical world, there is no need to directly connect the quantities of "disorder" and "information". This, in part, along with the more important facts that all these things apply to closed systems and the Earth is not a closed system, means that any argument based on how "entropy" disproves evolution due to some information argument is bogus. [[User:DanPW]]

== Second Law and Evolution ==

I have removed the statement about the Second Law disproving evolution. It is pretty obvious that Mr. Schlafly does not have a correct understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and with all due respect, his inaccurate contributions to this article must be removed. From what I understand, Mr. Schlafly's reasoning is based on his belief that evolution is "disorder changing by itself into a more ordered state," which is not true. This has been explained in most of the above sections on this talk page, so I will not rehash arguments. I just expect a better explanation if the article is to be changed back to saying that the Second Law does disprove evolution.

I suspect that the Second Law does not disprove the theory of relativity either, but I have not looked into the arguments for or against this claim so I am leaving this in the article.

--[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 01:31, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

:Your edit was reverted because the Second Law does ban disorder becoming more orderly, just as it bans heat spontaneously flowing to hotter locations. The theory of evolution is based on the contrary claim that random (disordered) mutations create greater order.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:35, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::In thermodynamic terms, the concept of "order" is not usually applied to the Second Law except in rigorous terms of "molecular ordering," which you have not made a clear connection to the theory of evolution. Also, you are ignoring the fact that the Second Law only applies to a closed system (and the Earth is not a closed system), which has been explained many times above. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 02:02, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::And just what is this "closed system" that the 2nd Law here has to be restricted to? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:16, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::The standard thermodynamic definition of a closed system is one that cannot exchange mass with its surroundings. But in the context of Mr. Schlafly's assertions about the Second Law and evolution, his misunderstanding about the thermodynamic concept of order is even more significant. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 02:38, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::And why can't that happen on earth? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:42, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::The Earth is actually pretty close to being a closed system, but obviously it is possible for matter to leave or enter the Earth's atmosphere. But the main problem with the Second Law being used as an argument against evolution is the claim that evolution requires "disorder changing by itself into a more ordered state" (this was most recently stated on [[Talk:Main_Page]]) and the idea that "disorder" (however that is defined) is always increasing. Mr. Schlafly has not provided any substantial evidence or explanation for this, and that is why I removed the claim about evolution from the article. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 03:05, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::You and everyone else above kept right on saying that earth is a closed system; now you're changing it to "''pretty close'' to being a closed system"? Have you ever put together logs in a fireplace and watched them burn? Which was more complex: the logs assembled, or the ashes several hours later? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:10, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::As I stated in my most recent 2 comments, the fact that the Earth is not a closed system is not as relevant to Mr. Schlafly's Second Law vs. evolution argument as is his concept of order. (And I do believe much of the discussion above on this talk page is not well focused.) I am not seeing the connection between your burning log example and evolution. Please elaborate. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 03:27, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::Now it's back to being a closed system? Did "pretty close" just disappear? Answer the question about the logs. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:45, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::The logs are more complex; in the act of burning them, matter goes from an ordered state to a more disordered one, and energy is given off. Are you going to elaborate on how this relates to evolution as Randall asked? [[User:CWest|CWest]] 08:28, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::::That is correct. Now explain why the 2nd Law only applies to a closed system. Those are your words, Randall7, and I expect you to answer it...not CWest. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:41, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::::The two statements that make up the foundation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics - the Kelvin-Planck statement and the Clausius statement - both describe systems that exchange heat and/or work with their surroundings, but not mass. But as I said before, my concern is less about the closed system argument and more about the abuse of the concept of "order" to claim that the Second Law disproves evolution. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 20:37, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

Several more questions, Mr. Randal7, because now you're drifting away from the "closed" system here.
:1. Is iron more complex than rust? And when iron does rust, does it constitute an improvement, or a breakdown?
:2. What happens to boiling water when you turn off the stove? Does it stay the same, or does it get cooler?
:3. Is CWest's statement above correct, in that ''"matter goes from an ordered state to a more disordered one"''? Does that statement apply only to the fireplace? Could it also apply to a freshly-cleaned living room, just prior to adding three eight-year-old spoiled brats with pop guns and a baby sitter unable to control the outcome? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:25, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

::I feel like this discussion is becoming less productive and more of a waste of time, but I'll answer the questions because I want to see how you relate them to the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproving evolution. (I so far have failed to see the connection.)
::#Iron is generally less complex than rust. (Although "complex" is not a very precise term.) Iron is a single element, whereas rust can be a number of iron oxide or iron hydroxide compounds. Iron is usually much more homogeneous than rust. When iron rusts it is a chemical and thermodynamic improvement - it would not happen spontaneously if it were not energetically favorable. In practical terms, rusting is not an improvement because pure iron is more useful for structural or electrical applications, but pure iron does not usually stay pure for long because of its propensity to oxidate. This is why iron alloys are much more common.
::#When the stove is turned off, boiling water cools as heat is transferred from the water to its cooler surroundings. Entropy is generated from this heat transfer.
::#In the burning log example, it is true that "matter goes from an ordered state to a more disordered one," and there are plenty of other examples where this statement is true. There are also many instances where matter goes from a disordered state to a more ordered one, such as water freezing or magnetization. But in theses cases of matter becoming more ordered, net entropy of the matter and its surroundings will still never decrease. The statement could also apply to a room of spoiled brats, but in this case the term "order" is no longer being used in a thermodynamic or chemical sense.
::--[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 15:27, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

===My answers to Randall7===
With regards to the iron, you are wrong. Rust is a breakdown; it is a disintegration of the iron itself. The rust can be stopped; the iron can be prevented from rusting further, but rust in and of itself can never be restored into iron. It goes one-way only. Likewise the water on the stove; take away the heat which makes the water boil, and the water temperature will drop to the lowest level possible, which one can call "room temperature". Likewise the fireplace logs, likewise the living room. One-way only. Complex to simple, order to disorder. It never, ever happens in reverse.

The 2nd Law of thermodynamics is the same way. You can restrict the 2nd Law to heating and/or energy concepts all you want, but the very core of this law is the same thing cited above: order ''always'' goes to disorder; complex ''always'' goes to simple. The 2nd Law may be about heat, but turn off the fire and what do you get? Water cooling down, heat cooling and dissipating, complex to simple, order to disorder. The fireplace scene has the heat, but the logs always end up as ashes. The ashes ''never'' turn back into logs.

And the final answer to the question "what does this have to do with evolution?". It was evolutionists who stated we should ''accept'' their scenario as to how life came to be: ''simple'' organisms ''evolved'' into more and more ''complex'' ones over time. ''Simple'' to ''complex''; ''disorder'' to ''order''. When making scientific investigations the very first step of the [[scientific method]] that must be followed is ''observation''; a scientist has to ''observe'' what is going on, and every single minute of every day scientists and layman alike are observing the 2nd Law in action; no one can get away from it. ''Observation'' proves complex always goes to simple; ''observation'' proves order always goes to disorder. ''Observation'', scientific or not, ''confirms'' the validity of the 2nd Law. The examples I posted above - the fireplace, the iron, the living room, the stove top - are perfect examples of the 2nd Law in action, closed system or not. It's impossible to go into reverse.

That is why we're going to post the impossibility of evolution on this website, ''vis-a-vis'' the 2nd Law. Case closed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:14, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

:You make a good point that irreversibility is an unavoidable consequence of the Second Law. There is no such thing as a truly reversible process and all processes generate entropy. But your claim that "order ''always'' goes to disorder; complex ''always'' goes to simple" is absurd. More ordered/"complex" materials can be formed through [[work]]. ("Simple" and "complex" do not have rigorous thermodynamic definitions, by the way.) Otherwise every single ordered object would have to have existed existed exactly as it is since the beginning of time, or have existed in a larger or more ordered form. Organisms gain energy - the capacity do do work - by eating, respiring, photosynthesizing, or otherwise absorbing energy from their surroundings. This allows them to become more ordered or more "complex," but this is not in violation of the the Second Law because during their processes of converting energy and exerting work, net entropy is generated. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 23:57, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
::Randall7, these organisms do take in food, use it as energy, and continue on with their lives, but their status as organisms remains unchanged until they ''cease the work''; when that happens they wither away and die; they decompose, they turn to dust. Complex to simple, order to disorder. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:03, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::I suppose that is true, but you did not refute anything I just said. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:11, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
::::If you can sit there and "suppose it is true", then I did refute everything you just said. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:00, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::You seem to focus very much on the "withering away" part of the cycle. What about the observations of growing crystals, growing plants, growing children? Those processes do go from simple to complex - whether the complex states can exist forever (they can't) is not relevant, what's important is that these processes occur naturally. And they're not in contradiction to the second law either; e.g. in the case of crystal growth the evaporating water occupies a larger volume afterwards and hence has increased entropy. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 02:35, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::Frederick, "growing" crystals do not constitute life. Grown humans and plants are still the same species; I don't see children take on a totally different form when growing up into completely-normal adult human beings, and I don't see an acorn grow into anything other than an oak. You don't have a valid argument. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:50, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::Oh, Frederick, don't forget to tell the viewing audience here that your "crystal" things are actually water-soluable; they dissolve in water, and reappear back into crystals when the water evaporates. Nothing to do with entropy, the 2nd Law, or the antics of trolling via China. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

----

:Andy, how do you explain the growth of a crystal (an ordered arrangement of ions) from a solution (a disordered arrangement), if "the Second Law does ban disorder becoming more orderly", as you say? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:39, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::Order is not really increasing when a crystal grows in a solution, or when water changes its phase and becomes ice. If the crystal or ice is melted again, then one back to where it started. This is no increase in order.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:53, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly, it is clear that your concept of order differs from the thermodynamic concept of order. When water freezes, its entropy decreases and when ice melts, its entropy increases, but during these processes the entropy of the water's surroundings also increase/decrease (such that total net change in entropy is never negative, and in reality is net positive). I would like to hear an explanation of how changes in "order" during evolution relate to the actual Second Law of Thermodynamics. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 20:37, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::::: Mr. Schlafly, are you honestly suggesting there is no change in entropy when water melts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:57, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::: That's a question about semantics - the answer depends entirely on how one decides to define "entropy".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:01, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Entropy has a very clear definition which you can look up in any textbook on thermodynamics. According to that definition, the entropy changes (increases) when water/ice melts. And of course a clear definition is prerequisite to being able to formulate and understand the second law properly in the first place. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 02:35, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm aware of two definitions of entropy in the context of thermodynamics. The statistical entropy, S, of a system is defined as <math>S = -k_{B}\sum_{j}P_{j}\log\left(P_{j}\right)</math> where <math>k_{B}</math> is Boltzmann's constant and <math>P_j</math> is the probability of the system to be in the ''i''th microstate (this reduces to <math>S = k_{B} \log \Omega</math> where <math>\Omega</math> when all the microstates are equiprobable and <math>\Omega</math> is the number of microstates). Alternatively, one has the thermodynamic definition of entropy <math>dS = \frac{\delta Q}{T} \!</math> where <math>\delta Q</math> in an infinitesimal change in heat and <math>T</math> is the temperature of the system. However, Boltzmann showed this was equivalent to the statistical entropy, so these two definitions are really just two different descriptions of the same thing. In any case, the second law of thermodynamics is talking about the statistical/thermodynamic entropy. It clearly changes when ice melts. If you have your own definition of entropy Mr. Schlafly that's fine, although it's confusing to use a word that already has a clear meaning and then use your particular definition in the talk page of the second law of thermodynamics. However, people here are using 'entropy' as its understood by actual scientists. What is your definition? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:00, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::::: I don't have any reason to doubt your formulas for entropy, and thanks for posting them. But for the purposes of the Second Law the dictionary definition for entropy works fine: a measure of disorder in a system. It's always increasing unless there is some kind of intelligent intervention, like [[God]] creating the world. Perhaps [[faith]] can operate to reduce entropy. Otherwise, without intervention or faith, disorder is always increasing, and the Second Law is an expressing of that logical truth. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible, and it is isn't.

:::::::::: Considering we're talking about physics the definition used by physicists should take precedent. But fine, often "a measure of disorder in a system" is used to define entropy for the layman. However, under this definition the entropy ''still'' increases when ice melts since the structure becomes less ordered. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:15, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::: The melting of ice is simply a phase change to reflect the temperature. Refreeze the water and it's back to where it started. Observing water rather than ice is logically the same as observing the temperature on a nearby thermometer. This doesn't illustrate the basic truth that a [[perpetual motion machine]] is impossible. Do you think a perpetual motion machine -- one that that moves forever in a consistent manner without intelligent intervention -- may be possible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

While this isn't really my area a scientific expertise, there are a few things I'd like to say.

1. Perhaps a "layman's dictionary" definition of entropy could get away with just saying it's a measure of disorder, but that really isn't good enough for a web site that prides itself on its articles on science and math. Look at the [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] for an example of the sophistication we have. By the way, my Webster's New Twentieth Century (yeah, it's out of date) Dictionary is a layman's dictionary, albeit unabridged. It gives its first definition as "a thermodynamic measure of the amount of energy unavailable for work in a system undergoing change." In any case, if you use the hand-wavy "disorder" definition, you can't then talk about thermodynamics and the fact that entropy increases. You'd have to explain how the act of cleaning one's room, or sorting a deck of cards, doesn't violate the second law. Of course we know why it doesn't, but we can't explain that without at least some thermodynamic terms. One needs to understand the connection between decks of cards naturally becoming ordered when we shuffle them, and heat spontaneously flowing from a colder object to a warmer one. It's not simple.

2. The connection between iron and rust, and the connection between wood and ashes, is not one of "disintegration". Iron does not disintegrate when it rusts. (In fact, because of its place on the nuclear binding energy graph, iron is the most indestructible element that there is.) Iron combines with oxygen. That is a chemical reaction, and it can be reversed, though, unfortunately, it doesn't naturally reverse itself when rusty objects are left outside. An understanding of how chemical reactions work, and how they can be reversed, is the result of the hundreds of years of research, first by the alchemists, followed by the more careful research of people like Priestley, Lavoisier, Dalton, Scheele, Gay-Lussac, and many others.

3. The oxidation of wood to make ash (it's more complicated than that, actually) is another chemical reaction, and it is also reversible. Trees burn down all the time. The ash goes into the ground, and, eventually, the forest grows back. The cycle repeats again and again, all over the world. The change in entropy between water and ice also goes in cycles, every year. When water freezes in winter, the entropy goes down. When the ice thaws, it goes up. Repeatedly. The heat budget of the Sun-Earth system (warm in summer, cold in winter) is easily enough to drive the entropy of all of these reactions. The same thing is true of salts going between solution (disorder, and high entropy) and crystals (order, and low entropy.) The energy needed to make these reactions go back and forth is easily available, from, say, a Bunsen burner. Or just leaving something out to dry.

4. The same sort of thing happens in the field of biology. The transition from a bunch of amino acids (disordered system) into, say, a kidney (ordered system) can take place easily, because the necessary energy is available. By the way, the force involved in turning amino acids into kidneys is related to the force turning a salt solution into a crystal. The ribosomes that put an amino acid into place are acting under electrostatic forces, albeit in a much more complex pattern than a positive Sodium ion falling into place next to a negative Chlorine ion.

5. In discussing the second law, one must keep in mind that there are two kinds of hypothetical "perpetual motion machines." A "perpetual motion machine of the first kind" violates the first law of thermodynamics, that is, conservation of energy. It is what people usually think of when they talk about perpetual motion machines. A "perpetual motion machine of the second kind" violates the second law of thermodynamics. It makes a cold thing colder and a hot thing hotter, while conserving energy. That is, it moves heat "uphill" without any external energy source.

6. Biological evolution is, of course, more complicated than all that. Whether the second law makes biological evolution impossible is a complicated question, and I have to defer to scientists who have studied this in much more detail than I.

[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 00:51, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Conservapedia

2012-06-10T18:29:17Z

JudyJ: /* Blocked user listed as influential */

.

Where are the claims of bias? The controversial aspects? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Notable_incidents Even Wikipedia says] it has been controversial. --[[User:Gert3|Gert3]] 09:07, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

== Cannot edit? ==

When I view this page the "edit button" isn't there, is this a purposeful measure? I wanted to change ''...Conservapedia originally contained mostly history articles, it has grown over '''two years''' to be a general reference...'' because if Conservapedia was launched in 2006 that would make it nearly 5 years old. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:07, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
: I think that means the page has been 'protected'. Only some of the more senior users (administrators?) have access. You can ask for it to be temporarily unprotected, probably ask ASchlafly. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 22:17, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
::I think I have already bothered him enough today (I couldn't find the help index despite it being right in the menu!). Hopefully a senior user will see this. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:23, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
:::Hi Max, good catch! I made that change for you: I made it "grown over several years". If there were any other changes you wanted to make, let me know or I'll unlock the article for you. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:07, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
::::Thanks Addison! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 15:27, 15 March 2011 (EDT)

== Differences with Wikipedia Section ==

Under this section, it might be helpful to add a wiki link to this page: [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. One of the better differences, in my opinion, is that Conservapedia allows primary sources while Wikipedia does not. According to Wikipedia, if the liberal media has not mentioned it, then it must not exist. This is the same tactic liberals used when [[ClimateGate]] went public; they simply ignored the story and hoped it would disappear.

Secondary sources can be very helpful in explaining a more complex topic, but an encyclopedic approach would be to cite the primary and secondary sources, which Wikipedia does not allow. This means that Wikipedia is a source for less reliable, second-hand citations; unless a page is completely unrelated to politics of any kind, Wikipedia references mostly liberal opinions with a bias view discussing a primary source. Even then, Wikipedia's non-political pages still can't use primary research as a citation. In my opinion, primary sources are more encyclopedic than the opinions of HuffPo writers, MSNBC reporters and the vast liberal media machine. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 21:32, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

: Wow, that's a superb insight! I added the link as you suggested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

== Blocked user listed as influential ==
In the "influential users" list, "JacobB" is still listed even though that user was blocked for inserting false information. Was leaving this user on the list intended or an oversight? [[User:CWest|CWest]] 12:41, 8 June 2012 (EDT)

The following was mailed to me by SamHB. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 14:29, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

I take exception to the suggestion that user JacobB was "blocked for inserting false information". That is not true. Jacob was more knowledgeable about mathematics than everyone here, past or present, put together. He was caught up in some kind of internet password spoofing incident, and the "good guys vs. traitors" mindset kicked in. I believe he was allowed to come back briefly, but he quickly lost interest and moved on to other things. In his case, grad school in mathematics. He never inserted false information. You should show some respect, OK? If his user page showing as a redlink bothers you, why not just restore the page?

Another matter. While I had bitter fights with Terry Koeckritz, I was saddened to learn of his death. I think the existing entry does not show respect the way it should. The phrase "RIP" is used in many ways, from extremely solemn (Requiescat In Pacem) to downright silly and flippant (hanging an "RIP" sign on a computer.) Someone reading his entry wouldn't really know what was intended. They could even conclude that he was simply banned. I would suggest changing the line to something like

*[[User:TK|TK]] made many substantive contributions since coming to Conservapedia in 2007, and was known for his vigilance against vandals prior to his sudden passing in December, 2010.

Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-06-07T03:32:55Z

JudyJ: You're quite right. Positrons save the lives of cancer patients every day. Try top quarks. I bet even flux capacitors don't use them!

This is intended as an article rebutting the points in the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article. That article's talk page has proven to be less than satisfactory for this purpose, because it gets archived, and much of its material has degenerated into personal disputes. We believe that the two sides of the issue are better handled in two articles—this one and [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], rather than a talk page.

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

#''Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found. Sound like global warming?''
#:True, the ''direct'' searches for gravitational waves have not yet yielded any clear results, though indirect observations have been made (the Hulse/Taylor observations.) Before people dismiss indirect observations, recall that no one has ever seen an electron.
#:The Earth-based LIGO detectors have, so far, not detected any unambiguous gravitational wave signatures from such events as a black-hole merger. It is barely sensitive enough to find such things in the Milky Way or very nearby galaxies. It is being upgraded in a plan that should complete in 2014. It is hoped that, after the upgrade, it will be able to see these events clearly and unambiguously.
#:The space-based LISA detectors have not been built yet, and the original proposal has been scrapped because of budgetary problems. A new version, called "eLISA" has been proposed, and should be sensitive to events as far away as redshift 15.
#:Whether these experiments are a good use of money is another question, one that has no bearing on whether relativity is correct.
#::The objection has been raised that the experiments should not have been funded if scientists were going to ignore negative results.
#:::The results are only partly negative. The scientists knew all along that a certain amount of luck would be involved in finding a sufficiently strong signal within the time frame of the experiment. The failure so far does not mean that black-hole mergers do not emit gravitational waves; just that they haven't been lucky enough to find them. They will continue to search.
#:This has nothing to do with global warming.
#''The orbital radius of the Moon's orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts''.
#:This could be a counterexample to both GR and Newtonian gravity--in both, the radius is defined in terms of conserved quantities.
#::The objection has been raised that this would still be a counterexample to Relativity.
#:::Yes, if it were actually true that the Moon's orbit is undergoing some kind of anomalous perturbation, it would indeed be a disproof of Relativity, Newtonian mechanics, and, in fact, all of physics since Galileo.
#''The Pioneer anomaly.''
#:The "Pioneer anomaly" is the deviation in the motion of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft from their predicted motion, at the distance of Saturn and beyond. It should be noted that the anomaly is about 1000 times greater than the difference between the classical Newtonian prediction and the prediction of relativity, so this is not a problem with relativity ''per se''; it is more general than that.
#:Calculating the force caused by heat (that is, miniscule amounts of infrared radiation) from the radioactive power source was one of the first effects that was examined. The anomaly arose when this and other known effects could not fully explain the deviation.
#:The problem is believed to have been solved by taking into account the reflection of the radiation from the power source off of the back of the antenna dish<ref>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/</ref>. The solution is sometimes described as an application of "Phong shading", a technique of computer graphics that is now considered imprecise. But Phong shading itself is not what is important. The "ray tracing" computer graphics technique that underlies Phong shading was what inspired the scientists to take reflection into account.
#''Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity. The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement''.
#:This is an interesting observation. The world's best scientific minds are looking into it. That relativity is incorrect is not being taken seriously as a possible explanation.
#:'''Update:''' The problem seems to have been caused by a faulty cable connection between a computer and a GPS unit. When the connection was repaired, the travel time increased by 60 nanoseconds, which had been the amount of the anomaly <ref>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/22/technology-faster-than-light-neutrinos.html</ref> <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/22/loose-wire-led-to-stunning-faster-than-light-particle-finding/?intcmp=features</ref>.
#:The objection has been raised that a recent news report from the BBC ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is also contradictory, since neutrinos have mass and are therefore forbidden by relativity to travel at exactly the speed of light. Since the neutrino energies were 17GeV, and the current estimate for the neutrino mass is about 0.25eV, the deviation from the speed of light would be about 1 part in 1022. This means that the neutrinos would arrive at the detector about .26x10-24 seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is one quarter of a billionth of a femtosecond, or about .26x10-15 of a nanosecond. The accuracy of the GPS units and cesium clocks used in the measurement is greater than a nanosecond, so the discrepancy cannot possibly be detected. It is unfortunate that the claim "the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos" was taken so literally.
#''Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").''
#:This may be another case of the Pioneer anomaly, or it may be something else. However, it is very unlikely that it shows that relativity is wrong and Newtonian mechanics is correct.
#''Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "dark matter" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it due to the acceleration of various parts of galaxies that accelerated funny that led to dark matter (based on simple Newtonian dynamics)?
#''The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "dark energy" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:This is the dark energy/cosmological constant argument. The cosmological constant was added by Einstein after he discovered that his field equations (<math>\mathbf{G}=8\pi \mathbf{T}</math>) predicted that the universe was expanding, contradicting his firm philosophical belief in a static universe. So he inserted <math>\Lambda \mathbf{g}</math> to the LHS so that it would predict a static universe. A few years later, Hubble showed the universe to be expanding, and Einstein called the cosmological constant the worst mistake of his career. So, it sort of had a bad reputation, and people didn't want to seriously consider it, until recent observations have shown the universe's expansion to be accelerating forced them to do so. It could have had a very different history. Einstein could have had that term in the EFE's from the start, and pointed out that it would determine if the universe's expansion was accelerating (or not expanding at all!) and it would take further observation to determine its value.
#''Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.''
#:A footnote goes on to say that "In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01) ..."
#:Considering only the ''anomalous'' precession, that is, the precession that remains after all known other factors (other planets and asteroids, solar oblateness) have been accounted for, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values are:
#::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
#::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
#::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
#::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
#::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
#:These error bars, and that of the relativity formula, all overlap.
#:The formula for mechanics under general relativity is complicated, but it is not contrived or conformed. "Conformed" suggests that it was somehow adjusted or "tweaked" to match the 42.98 figure. The formula is
#:::<math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>
#:To begin to explain the formula, Newton's law of gravity, combining F = ma and <math>F = \frac{KMm}{r^2}\,</math>, is
#::<math>a = \frac{KM}{r^2}\,</math>
#:In Einstein's equation, <math>T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "stress-energy tensor", and <math>8 \pi T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> gives the density of the Sun, taking the place of <math>\frac{M}{r^2}\,</math>. <math>G_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "Einstein curvature tensor", and says how spacetime curves to create an apparent gravitational acceleration.
#:There is nothing to tweak to get a value of 42.98 arcseconds. 8 is 8. <math>\pi\,</math> is <math>\pi\,</math>. K is Newton's constant of gravitation in both formulas.
#:
#::::The above discussion notwithstanding, more sophisticated technology has measured a precession of 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01, which disproves the prediction of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Notice how publication of data stopped two decades ago when the observations diverged from the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
#:Measurements of planetary motion are now calculated relative to the "International Celestial Reference Frame" (ICFR), replacing the older, and much less accurate "equinoctial" frame. The older measurements got a value of about 5600 arcseconds/century for the precession of Mercury, nearly all of which (5025 arcseconds) was because of the rotation of the "equinoctial" frame. The ICFR frame removes that source of uncertainty, and, with the very accurate radar measurements conducted by NASA between 1987 and 1997<ref>[http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf]</ref>, gets a value of 574.10±0.65 arcseconds observed, in good agreement with the predicted 574.64±0.69 value.
#:
#:The ICFR is described in [http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Publications/TechnicalNotes/tn32.html this] document, dated 2003.
#''The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.''
#:The formulas for velocity, momentum, and mass can in fact be written in such a way that they appear to have discontinuities, just as the tangent function has discontinuities while the underlying sine and cosine functions do not. But they can also be written in a form that does not show discontinuities.
#:All particles, with or without mass, can have any value of momentum. The formula for the velocity of a particle, in terms of its mass and momentum, is
#:::<math>v = \frac{pc}{\sqrt{m^2c^2+p^2}}</math>
#:For a particle with mass, this means that momentum of zero gives a speed of zero, and, as the momentum approaches infinity, the speed approaches c.
#:For a massless particle, the speed is always c.
#''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''
#:The simple answer is, unequivocally, that it acts on the 'relativistic' mass. The question seems to relate to a simple misunderstanding of Special Relativity. Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance in the body's mass with regard to the direction of the force. Thus to a given observer, a force in any direction will operate on the same mass. However, to a different observer, this mass may be different, although still the constant with regard to the direction of the force.
#''The observed lack of curvature in overall space.''
#:What? Is has been observed
#''The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.''
#:We're still working on a quantum theory of gravity; this isn't so much a counter-example as saying that (classical)GR isn't valid in that domain.
#''The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.''
#:Special Relativity only forbids the transmission of matter, energy or information at a speed faster than light. There are plenty of other things that can move faster than light. Consider a laser on Earth which is rotating on a pivot, whose light shines onto the hull of a satellite 200,000Km away (2e8 metres). If the laser rotates at a sedentary one revolution ever four seconds, the speed of the laser beam's tip crossing the satellite's hull is 3.14e8 metres per second - faster than the speed of light. However, this is not a transfer of information. Any information is travelling from Earth to the satellite, obeying the universal speed limit. Similarly, the only information that can be transmitted by the quantum entanglement of two particles is from the originator of the particles to the two observers, not from one observer to another. Faster than light transmission of information using quantum entanglement has never been observed, nor has even conceived how such a mechanism might work.<ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612</ref>
#''The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.''
#:As an argument against relativity, there are two reasons that this is invalid (beyond simply questioning the evidential validity of the Bible):
#::a) These passages clearly refer to a [[miracle]]. A miracle, being an act of God, is not subject to the laws of physics.
#::b) It is highly debatable as to whether the verses do describe [[action-at-a-distance]] in the sense of an action whose influence travels instantaneously (and therefore faster than the speed of light). This itself may be argued from two viewpoints:
#:::i) When reading these passages, as with consideration of many apparent relativistic anomalies, the true picture of causality must be considered. In each case there are two apparent events. Event A - Jesus does something (says 'thy son liveth', says 'be it unto thee even as thou wilt', or Christ's spirit leaving His body). Event B - the apparent result (the son lives, her daughter is made whole, or the earth quakes). However, it is not the case in any of these examples that A causes B. Both A and B are caused by a third event. In the first two cases it is Christ's thought that causes the miracle and that causes His lips to announce the miracle. This thought would have occurred fractions of a second before either event, and is the non-instantaneous cause of both. In the last case it is Christ's death that is the precursor and cause of both events.
#:::ii) It must be considered that at the time when the Gospels were written, neither their authors nor their intended readers were aware of any concept of the speed of light and were unable to measure the billionths of a second difference between the events being considered here. Thus just as in modern parlance the phrase 'at the same moment' has a tolerance of milliseconds (unless specifically couched to mean otherwise) so do the various terms used by the Evangelists. They would never have considered it an important issue, and would therefore not have worried about the degree of precision.
#::::Miracles do not violate logic, and the [[Theory of Relativity]] asserts that these [[action-at-a-distance]] miracles described in the [[Gospels]] are impossible. No plausible medium for these miracles, even if they were non-instantaneous action-at-a-distance, has been proposed.
#''The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.''
#:Gravitons are a prediction of [[Quantum Theory]], not of relativity, although the concept is an extension of the relativistic idea that forces take a finite time to be transmitted over a distance.
#:No one expects to observe gravitons. Calculations show that it is well-nigh impossible with any conceivable detector that we could build. No one is designing, funding, or building any apparatus to search for gravitons.
#:Now it happens that theoretical physicists discuss and speculate on the existence and nature of such things as gravitons as part of their theoretical work. Some of these discussions take place among scientists who receive their salaries from various government agencies that are funded by taxpayers. Whether all of the things that scientists think about, talk about, and write about constitute a good use of money is not for us to say.
#''Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do not experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity''
#:Whilst this observation is unconfirmed, if true it would still not invalidate relativity. Many things may vary with position in space, and relativity does not deny this. There is no suggestion that the fine-structure constant is different at the same point in space for observers in different non-inertial frame, as the 'counterexample' implies.
#''The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a black hole. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."''
#:When physicists encounter something puzzling, their first reaction is usually not to assume that it shows that relativity is wrong. In fact the cited article never mentions relativity at all. It is about "magnetars", a type of neutron star about which very little is known, other than their extremely strong magnetic fields.
#:Many scientific discoveries have arisen from observations that were puzzling at first. Edwin Hubble's observations of galactic redshift led to the realization that the universe is expanding isotropically. The observations by Jocelyn Bell and Antony Hewish, of periodic pulsation in the radio emissions of a star, were so puzzling at first that they seemed to suggest transmissions from intelligent extraterrestrials. They had actually discovered pulsars. When Carl Anderson saw unexplained particle tracks in a cloud chamber, he had discovered antiparticles.
#:None of these people assumed that the explanation for these observations was that relativity was wrong. They were all astrophysicists and were quite familiar with relativity. In fact, Anderson's antiparticles had been predicted by the Dirac equation, a synthesis of special relativity and the Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics, from a few years earlier.
#''The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.''
#:It is utterly baffling how anyone could make such an assertion. The insights from relativity are multitudinous. Relativity forms the basis for astronomy, cosmology, electrodynamics, and many other fields. The interconnection between the electric and magnetic forces is now seen to be a straightforward consequence of relativity. Relativity combined with quantum mechanics are the basis of all of contemporary physics.
#:The Dirac equation, which gives rise to antiparticles and the theory of spinors, was an early example of introducing relatitivity into the Schrödinger equation.
#:More generally, special relativity was combined with quantum theory to produce [[quantum field theory]] (QFT). An example of a QFT is [[quantum electrodynamics]], the most precise theory in physics. Furthermore, string theory is Lorentz invariant and produces general relativity in the low energy limit.
#''The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.''
#:We are baffled that anyone would connect this problem with relativity. The non-relativity principle of conservation of mass has been known, in general, for hundreds of years, going back to the time of the alchemists, and has been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. The principle of conservation of energy has also been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. Relativity simply generalizes this to a principle of both together, with even greater precision. So, in principle, it is recognized that the mass of the standard kilogram could change if an energy transfer took place. But no combustion, corrosion, or nuclear decay is suspected of having taken place. In any case, the amount of energy that would have to have been released is 1.25 megawatt-hours, which would certainly have been noticed.
#:Relativity does not promise uniformity of the universe any more strongly than classical physics did. The apparent change in mass of the standard kilogram is simply a mystery.
#''The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 22, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about speculation that the constant "alpha" (see item 16 above) may not be constant. It might have decreased, by 45 parts per billion, as recently (in cosmic time) as two billion years ago, based on data from the Oklo "natural fission reactor". Other measurements have been made of alpha at earlier times, such as measurement of light from distant quasars. These measurements suggest that alpha has increased by a few parts per 105 in 12 billion years.
#:There is plenty of literature on theories about change in alpha, and some of it indicates that this may be due to change in the speed of light. Specifically, the Oklo data may suggest that the speed of light may have been increasing slightly. (This is the opposite of the direction of change claimed by fundamentalists, but is much smaller in any case.)
#:Speculation on a different speed of light in the past may relate to theories of "cosmic inflation", which touches on the question of why the Cosmic Background Radiation is so nearly isotropic, which indicates a near-uniformity of temperature, which requires inflation or some equivalent mechanism.
#:None of the scientists working in this area seem to doubt the fundamental correctness of relativity.
#''"According to Einstein's view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 22, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about a very recent and exciting development in fundamental theoretical physics, generally called the "holographic principle". This proposes that our perceived 3-dimensional space actually arises from a "hologram" on a 2-dimensional space. Much has been written about this recently, including the best-selling book ''The Hidden Reality'' by Brian Greene. This hologram manifests itself in the "foamlike" ripples of spacetime, at the scale of the Planck length, which is so small that there seemed to be no way to detect it directly.
#:But it seems that some "inexplicable static" in the results of another unrelated experiment, searching for gravitational waves, may be the first hints of the holographic nature of space. If so, this is a lucky and serendipitous result.
#:Serendipitous scientific discoveries have been made many times, as when Henri Becquerel put a photographic plate in a dark drawer because the weather was cloudy, and thereby discovered radioactivity.
#:That the "foamlike" nature of space at short distances is contrary to the continuous nature presumed by classical mechanics and relativity has been known for some time. This is the problem that quantum gravity seeks to solve.
#''"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don't gel."''
#:Quoting things without explaining the context is often a bad idea, and the indicated item is a good example of this. It gives no hint of what the article from which the quote was taken is about. The article is about one scientist's contribution to the problem of unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. The scientist, Petr HoYava of Berkeley, has come up with an approach that he says eliminates the infinities that have plagued other unification attempts.
#:The two quoted sentences are HoYava's ''statement of the problem''. So it comes as no surprise that he says that there is a conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics. The very next paragraph begins:
#::The solution, HoYava says, is to snip threads that bind time to space at very high energies .... At low energies, general relativity emerges from this underlying framework ..."
#:It is well known that, just as classical mechanics emerges from quantum mechanics at non-microscopic scales, and classical mechanics emerges from relativity at low speeds, both relativity and quantum mechanics should emerge from the Grand Unified Theory (whatever that turns out to be) at the appropriate scales.
#''The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.''
#:The topology of wormholes is an interesting topic, widely discussed among theoretical physicists and mathematicians. There is much speculation about what they would be like (if they could exist at all under quantum gravity), and what kind of "cosmic censorship" or "chronology protection" theorems might make practical time travel impossible. The nature of these theorems seems to be intertwined with theories of quantum gravity and "grand unification", so the exact form of the "cosmic censorship", if it exists, can't be known until quantum mechanics and relativistic geometry are unified. It is an exciting field of research. No one believes that the "cosmic censorship" will take the form of relativity not being a true non-quantum approximation to reality.
#''The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.''
#:Since the 70's much work has been done on the subject of black hole thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973CMaPh..31..161B</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9307035v1.pdf</ref>, most notably by the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge [[Stephen Hawking]]. When quantum field theory is added to the analysis of black holes it is found that they do not possess "low entropy" (quite the opposite, in fact) and are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...7.2333B</ref>. The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article has labelled this work in a footnote as "[c]ontrived explanations", with no explanation for this characterization given.
#''Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.''
#:Please read the cited paper carefully. It is a survey of their observations over a 30 year period. They point out that their data matches general relativity to within 0.2 percent, and is now down in the "noise" of other effects, such as lack of accurate knowledge of just how far away the pulsars are, and lack of accurate knowledge of galactic constants. As they say in the abstract, "tighter bounds will be difficult to obtain." The paper, written in 2004, also notes that, because the pulsar beams are slowly tilting out of the line of sight to Earth, "A core component [of the emission] is quite prominent in the data taken in 1980-81, but it faded very significantly between 1980 and 1998 and was nearly gone by 2003."
#:That is why they are not releasing further data. 30 years is a fairly long time to watch a pair of pulsars. They're not doing the experiment any more—it did its job, and it's finished. No one drops cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa any more either.
#:The data are not diverging from the predictions.
#''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.''
#:The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses general relativity to achieve greater accuracy<ref>http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html</ref>.
#:In fact, relativity is what makes the magnetic force necessary. The magnetic force is used in, among other things, electric motors and generators.
#:Even if it were the case that no practical applications have come from relativity, that is irrelevant. The validity of a theory is not based on the creation of useful devices. It is based on its ability to accurately predict the results of an experiment. Relativity "has held up under extensive experimental scrutiny" <ref>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/</ref>.
#:If scientific theories were judged by their application in useful devices, the following Nobel-worthy theories would be rejected:
#::cosmic inflation
#::parity violation in the weak force
#::the "standard model", with strange/charm/top/bottom/mu/tau
#::the Chandrasekhar limit for white dwarf stars
#''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.''
#:The rules for calculating inertia and other questions of mechanics are well known. The inertia, that is, the way that a force affects an object's momentum, is well known. Hundreds of physics textbooks discuss this in great detail, in terms of the Lorentz transform and the concepts of the force and momentum 4-vectors. The "inertia" comes from what is now called the mass, which used to be called the "rest mass". Archaic treatments formulated this in terms of the "relativistic mass", which was different. The mass is a scalar, and has no direction. The formulas for calculating the motion in terms of forces, in the direction of motion or transverse to it, are well known.
#''Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.''
#:This seems to be another basic misunderstanding of relativity, from someone who gave up halfway through the textbook. Newtonian momentum (p = mv) does certainly indicate that a body with zero mass (''m'') must have zero momentum whatever its velocity (''v''). However, the relativistic equation for momentum is:
#::<math> p = \gamma m_0v\,</math>
#:where ''m''0 is the [[invariant mass|rest mass]] of the object and ''?'' is the Lorentz factor, given by
#::<math>\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2}}\,,</math>
#:where ''c'' is the [[speed of light]].
#:For the case of a photon, where rest mass is zero and ''v'' is equal to ''c'', this gives ''p'' as zero divided by zero - an undetermined value.
#:However, with the substitution of the famous E=mc2, where E is the energy of the body, the momentum equation can be rearranged to:
#::<math>pc = \sqrt{E^2 - m_0^2c^4}</math>
#:With a photon of zero rest mass, this gives:
#::<math>p = E/c\,</math>
#:Finally, substituting Planck's Equation for the energy of a photon <math>E = hf\,</math> where ''h'' is [[Planck's Constant]] and ''f'' is the frequency of the photon, we get the familiar (and experimentally demonstrated) value for a photon's momentum of:
#::<math>p = hf/c = h/\lambda\,</math>
#:where <math>\lambda</math> is the photon's wavelength.<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html</ref>
#''Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.''
#:There are no "conditions of a conservative field". A conservative field is one that has a curl of zero. Perhaps what was meant was that the gravitational field around the Sun, under Newtonian mechanics, is conservative. This is true because it is the gradient of an inverse-square scalar field, and all gradients have a curl of zero. Under relativity, the curl is also zero, due to the Bianchi identity and the symmetries of Riemann's tensor. See the extensive discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ACounterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=801452&oldid=799266 here].
#:The reference to the twin paradox suggests that the author thought that the passage of time is some kind of scalar field that should be obtainable as the path integral of a conservative vector field. It is not. Passage of time is a property of one's path through spacetime, and is similar to path length. (In fact, under the Lorentz/Minkowski metric, it is exactly path length.) Just as two paths from point A to point B on a sheet of paper can have different lengths, the paths of the twins can have different lengths, and hence different elapsed local times.
#''The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?''
#:The "Ehrenfest paradox" is not an actual paradox. Non-inertial relativistic motion of solid bodies is quite complicated, involving such concepts as "Born rigidity", "Langevin observers", the "Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric", and "quotient manifolds". In general, the subject is complicated, and has provided physicists with much food for thought. But it does not disprove relativity.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.''
#:The claims of that item are preposterous. Read the cited paper (or its abstract) carefully. Einstein's statement that clocks would run slower at the equator, due to time dilation, was correct according to special relativity alone. What Einstein didn't realize, because he wouldn't discover general relativity for another 10 years, was that the gravitational time shift would offset that.
#:A "geoid" (the shape dicussed in the paper) is a theoretical shape used in mathematical physics, that is in equilibrium between the effects of centrifugal force (from rotation) and gravity. It is essentially an oblate spheroid. It can be thought of as the shape a rotating planet would take if it were completely fluid. Or it could be thought of as the shape of "global sea level". Jupiter, because of its rapid rotation, has a very pronounced flattening at the poles. Since Jupiter is not solid, its shape is a geoid. The Earth is ''very nearly'' a geoid, of course. But not exactly, because of gravitational nonuniformities, and things like mountains, that can exist because of the Earth's rigidity. No one "made new assumptions about the Earth's shape" to justify anything. The assumption that the Earth's shape is a geoid is a theoretical assumption due to the ''approximately'' fluid nature of the Earth. But no one claims that the Earth's shape is anything other than what it is observed and measured to be.
#:What the paper is about is the fact that the effects of rotational speed and gravitational time dilation happen to cancel each other on an ideal geoid. So all clocks at "sea level" on an ideal geoid-shaped planet run at the same speed. Whether this result is implausible is not for us to say.
#:The cited paper does not refute relativity.
#''The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.''
#:The physics and mathematics underlying the "twin paradox" are well known. That one of the twins will have had to undergo different accelerations from the other before returning to the same point is what enables them to perceive different passage of time. This does not contradict relativity, and Einstein never said that it does. His explanation in terms of different acceleration is correct.
#:The comment about extending the length of the trip so that the acceleration would be ''de minimis'' is wrong. It seems to suggest that the acceleration could be reduced until it is negligible. It can be reduced by lengthening the trip, but it is not negligible. The Lorentz transform, and the equations of motion, are mathematically exact. The integral of a very small function over a long period is still significant. If the twins followed different paths in spacetime, which they must in order to measure different elapsed proper time, they must have undergone different accelerations, however small those differences may have been.
#:Of course, if they never come back to the same point, they could both undergo zero acceleration.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.''
#:Quantum field theory abounds with fields. The Higgs particle has a Higgs field. It has nothing to do with the "luminiferous aether".
#''Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.''
#:Time isn't a vector. It is a component of the vector space known as "spacetime". Vectors have negatives; the word "inverse" is not typically used here. While there are thermodynamic and other reasons for not allowing time to go backwards in the real world, the mathematics of spacetime allow vectors with any components, even negative ones.
#''In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.''
#:That a Bible verse "likely" refers to a scientific phenomenon does not make good science. The objection appears to be claiming that the Bible contradicts the Michelson-Morley experiment, so the latter must be wrong. The Michelson-Morley experiment is very well known, has been repeated countless times, and is incontrovertible. To suggest that the Bible verse in Genesis contradicts such an incontrovertible phenomenon does a disservice to both the Bible and to science.
#''It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].''
#:Modern formulations of the Lorentz aether theory may very well make it completely equivalent to relativity, both special and general. But that doesn't make relativity wrong; it just means that another theory is just as correct. The universal preference of the scientific community for relativity over the Lorentz theory is probably not based on religious faith, but on simplicity, as expressed in [[Occam's razor]]. The Lorentz theory postulates an aether that no experiment can possibly determine the properties of, while relativity postulates no aether.
#''Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."''
#:They are not "beyond understanding". They are simply beyond closed-form solution. Cosmologists work with approximate solutions, calculated by extensive computer calculations, all the time. A well-known example of this is the simulation of galaxy dynamics. Particle physicists do this also, in, for example, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) calculations. It is fortunate that the equations of Keplerian/Newtonian planetary motion were solvable by the mathematical methods of the 17th century—a closed-form solution to a second-order differential equation. Modern physics problems are much harder. But, with modern computers, we can solve the equations of gravity to enormous precision.
#''Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein's Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."''
#:The first cited reference, from which the quote was taken, is a totally crackpot web page, from a web site that seems to specialize in hosting crackpot papers. The writing is utterly illiterate and incoherent, as in this sentence: "According to Faraday's Law it can be explained as that, duo to the magnetic flux in conductor line changing, firstly induced electromotive force dU coming from the line-winded conductor to bring out voltage, then based on differential form <math>I = \frac{-\sigma s dU}{dl}</math> of Ohm's Law, the physical natural would be regarded as 'voltage before electric current' "
#''Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.''
#:The equations of electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations), and their connection with relativity, are well known. Hundreds of electrodynamics textbooks cover this subject. The equations are correct at all realizable speeds, even relativistic (''near'' the speed of light) speeds. (Maxwell's equations are said to be the only equations from classical physics that did not need to be modified for relativity.) The equations correctly describe the behavior of magnets (this is presumably what was meant by "solenoids"), charges, and electric and magnetic fields, even at speeds near the speed of light. Of course the equations don't work ''at'' the speed of light. The cited article never discussed speeds ''near'' the speed of light, only ''at'' the speed of light. The questioner was rightly taken to task for his physically unrealizable assumption.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:science]]

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-05-13T17:07:04Z

JudyJ: /* Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession */

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

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

For older discussions, see the archive [[Talk:Theory of relativity/index|index]]. 
|valign="top" style="text-align:right"|[[Image:Conservlogo.png|65px]]
|}


== Mass depending on direction ==

The article states:
:''There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical.''

As [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] on 8 July 2007 (EDT): ''This paragraph is nonsense [..] The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

The observation sited in the first sentence of this article has been discredited. [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp] It appears that a loose fiber-optics cable is to blame for the misreadings. I suggest editing this first sentence, and any other mention of this in the article.--[[User:CarloP|CarloP]] 18:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)

:Issues concerning the neutrino experiment are not yet fully resolved. No problam: I replaced it with another counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?

Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:''Conservapedia'' seeks the truth, not merely what the [[lamestream media]] claim is the truth. Moreover, once one accepts a logical fallacy, then anything false can be proven from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:: Ahh.... But the fact that the conclusion is false does not necessarily render the basis false. I could say "Andy Schlafly founded Conservapedia and therefore I am a pig monkey." I am not a pig monkey, and even if I were, that has nothing to do with you founding this website. But you still did. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:58, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:When looking around the internet, it is obvious that Conservapedia's classification of relativity as [[pseudoscience]] is a source of some amusement and contempt. Aschlafly, could you please answer the two questions I raised above? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:27, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, liberal peer pressure from "around the internet" does not illuminate the truth. If what liberals on the internet said made a dime's bit of difference, then the [[Bible]] would not be the best selling book (by far) and the percentage of people who are [[conservative]] would not be growing (as it does).

::"Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?" Because it's false, it confuses people, it misleads people into stop reading the Bible, and its orthodoxy interferes with the advancement of science for the benefit of all. Other than that, it's not a bad theory!

::"Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition?" The only bias is by liberals who shout down any criticism of the theory. If the theory were so clearly true, then there would be no need for some liberals to rely on [[censorship]] in propping it up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I note that anyone using a GPS is relying on the Theory of Relativity being true, since calculations derived from Relativity are used within a GPS. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:GPS does '''''not''''' rely on the [[Theory of Relativity]], and this has been thoroughly explained on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Hi Aschlafly, I've located at least some of the discussion re GPS in the archives of this talk page, and there a lot of references for me to examine before I can make any further serious comments; certainly there are some references which appear to state that GPS relies on relativity. Can you perhaps draw my attention to what you consider the most important (half-dozen or so) references which indicate that the GPS system does NOT rely on relativity so that I have somewhere to start from? In the meantime I'll continue editing and improving less controversial articles as I have been doing for the last two months (my talk page lists nearly 40 articles I can usefully contribute to). [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:::This note 7 is on [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]:

::::Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

:::The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing: the small effects claimed by the special and general theories nearly cancel each other out for orbiting satellites. From an engineering perspective, it makes far more sense simply to adjust the clocks using synchronization rather than relying on (dubious) theoretical claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Another false claim because of sloppy reading: In the same source by The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, you can find how the authors Fliegel and DiEsposti describe what is happening to the clocks in the satellites:
''Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45 × 10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec. (p. 193).

The text is about the necessity of ''further'' corrections by the ''operational control system'' - there are corrections ''already'' installed in the clocks!

''The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing:'' This sentence is wrong. It has shown to be wrong a couple of times, so it starts to become a lie. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:12, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Theory of Relativity]] was not used to develop GPS, nor would it be sensible to waste time and money doing so. Synchronization is cheaper, simpler, and more reliable. The above quote does not contradict this obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

::The fact that these offsets are implemented in the clocks '''in accord with the theory of relativity''' as you can read in the very source you quoted shows that the [[Theory of Relativity]] is used in the GPS - and this from the very beginning of the project! Please, start to read your sources - completely! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:37, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Please, before we get into any more debate, could someone supply some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:41, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly took his quote from [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti (though he probably isn't aware of this). The paper is about relativistic effects due to moving GPS-'''''receivers''''' (or GPS-receivers in high altitudes) and comes to the conclusion, that at the moment, they don't have to include additional relativistic corrections.

:Aschlafly interprets this as if ''no'' relativistic corrections are implemented in the GPS.
:However, in the paper itself, you will find the section I quoted above, where the authors describe such very corrections within the clocks of the satellites.
:I'm afraid that Aschlafly won't come up with ''some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS'' as there aren't any.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:53, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Folks, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the [[Theory of Relativity]] was used to design GPS. That burden includes describing who, when, where, how, and why. It didn't happen. And if it did, the person who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:It looks to me as if you are trying to put impossible conditions prior to any debate. To avoid a lengthy debate all you have to do is produce some actual references which support your point of view. Is this too much to ask?

:If it didn't happen then you should be able to produce some evidence of this, so '''some actual references please'''. The only 'evidence' you have produced so far is an out-of-context quote from a paper which is concerned primarily with GPS receivers (that same paper mentions the use of relativity-related adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellite transmitters). Surely you must have more than this. Will you accept evidence from engineers and companies involved in designing and building the GPS system? If not, why not? Who would you accept evidence from? The US Department of Defense? Do you seriously expect a member of the public to be able to access internal design documents as your "who, when, where, how, and why" statement implies?

:If you care to check my contribution history you will see that I am actively contributing non-controversial information to articles. This discussion re GPS etc. is only a small part of my activities on Conservapedia. Since I've barely started on considering and consolidating what evidence there is re GPS I would rather have a week or so to look at the evidence before getting into a debate. This should give you ample time to come up with some references to support the separation of GPS and relativity. Simple searches via Google turn up numerous instances where relativity is claimed to be relevant to GPS, but I can't find anything to the contrary and '''I need your help to do so'''. I would really like to see evidence from '''both sides''' of the discussion before entering the debate, so '''some actual references please'''. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 19:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, you're requesting proof that something didn't happen. Moreover, someone with an engineering background (such as myself) would not expect it to have happened. It is like asking for a reference that no green cheese was found on the Moon. No such scientific reference is likely to exist, nor would anyone expect such a reference to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:28, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:: Every single article on GPS says that relativistic adjustments are made to the satellite clocks. Some give the formulas and some give quantitative data on the adjustments. Textbooks explain why the adjustments are necessary. I don't see any reason to doubt that GPS uses relativistic adjustments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:52, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::GPS does make synchronizing adjustments. Call them whatever you like, but those adjustments are not made based on predictions by the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Indeed, it would be a silly waste of time and money to synchronize in such a manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Unless you drive the flying Delorean from ''Back to the Future'', relativity would say that its effect on your car when you're driving at normal speeds is so small it need not be accounting for. The normal error for GPS (about 40 feet) is many magnitudes higher than the error relativity would cause. Now, the GPS in the Flying DeLorean would be another issue. But until that's invented, let's not worry about it, ok? Of course, if you were orienteering, your speed would be even slower than if you were driving. Indeed, if you were moving at any normal speed (even a supersonic jet), relativity would be incredibly small (assuming that it exists as scientists explain it). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:14, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::''GPS does make synchronizing adjustments'' Not only simple synchronizing: read the specifications for the GPS, read the sources ''in full'' which you are quoting, and you will see that all these engineers and scientists don't give a damn that you think that they are wasting ''time and money''.
:::::Aschlafly, your position is only tenable as you are willing to ignore most of the data which is presented to you. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you believe very firmly that relativity has nothing to do with GPS, even though you are unwilling to present any evidence to support this belief, and wish to put severe restrictions on what 'proof' of the relationship other folks may present. I raised some five questions above as to what sort of evidence you might consider. Could you please answer these questions.

::I'd like to ask Mr. Schafly if he could explain what the clock adjustments on GPS satellites are for, the article is not clear, and neither is anything on this talk page.--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:44, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Cahnkj, herewith a summary of the clock-adjustment situation as I (RolandPlankton) see it. Newton's equations of motions say nothing about how clocks keep time. Einstein's equations of relativity imply that identical clocks will vary in their timekeeping (tick at different rates) if they are travelling at different speeds, or if they are at different heights in a gravitational field, or if they are subject to different accelerations; see [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview]. Now the satellites used in the GPS system require very accurate clocks which are in step with ground-based clocks. The paper just quoted provides the various relativistic equations which apply - the satellites are travelling faster than a ground-based receiver, and are at a different height in a gravitational field. Prior to launch the clocks in the GPS satellites are deliberately set to a different tick rate from ground-based clocks, so that when they are in orbit the clocks will appear to tick at the same rate; the difference in tick rates is about 38 nanoseconds per day, and this adjustment can be calculated from the relevant relativistic equations.

:::But the problem is that Aschlafly rejects the Theory of Relativity, and hence rejects any calculation based on that. The only serious argument he has put forth on this current talk page (see preceding section) is an appeal to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Truth the truth]; the quote he provides above is also demolished above. You may wish to consult [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], which is rebutted point by point in [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].

:::Hope this doesn't add too much to the confusion. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 12:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Mr. Schlafly states above that "the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the Theory of Relativity was used to design GPS." (This is a fair requirement, and it seems as this has been done when AugustO referred to the Fliegel and DiEsposti paper above.)

::::But really, isn't the burden of proof on anyone who claims ''anything'' on this site, since Conservapedia Commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable" and Commandment #2 states that users should "always cite and give credit to <nowiki>[their]</nowiki> sources?" --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 19:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Good point. Anyone who asserts ''on this site'' that GPS was designed based on the [[Theory of Relativity]] needs to prove the claim. Note that the claim is implausible because it is cheaper, easier, and more precise to synchronize GPS based on observations rather than theoretical speculation. Also note that no [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for verification of the [[Theory of Relativity]] with GPS.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:55, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

===A Separate Question for Mr. Schlafly About References===

::Aschlafly, as a separate issue, in view of of your apparent attitude to references, could I ask you to have a look at the articles I have been working on over the last two months: [[Pi]], [[Programming language]], [[Compiler]], and the work-in-progress [[Chomsky hierarchy]]. Obviously I'm only asking you to consider the changes I have made. In particular, can you check if the references are acceptable to you, and can you also check that the general style and level of writing is in accordance with Conservapedia's aims? The next article I intend to turn my intention to is [[Context-Free Grammar]], since it seems to me that this fails to satisfy [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]] "Articles on complex topics need an introduction which assumes little or no previous knowledge". [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:03, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Roland, your good edits are appreciated and I've seen no complaints about them. I agree that the [[Context-Free Grammar]] would benefit from a better introduction and look forward to reading what you add there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

A good question was raised above: if synchronization to GPS is not due to the [[Theory of Relativity]], then what is it due to?

And the answer is simply this: [[quantum mechanics]]. There are fundamental uncertainties, and those uncertainties will lead to clock differences. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible. It isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

Where to start with this. This is so bad it isn't even wrong. Could I respectfully suggest that you confine your efforts to areas you understand at least a little bit.

The impossibility of perpetual motion has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. It comes from the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics and predates quantum mechanics by at least 100 years.

The uncertainty principle is also completely irrelevant. If we imagine a 100 kg satellite moving at a velocity of approximately 100 km/s (this is three times the earth's velocity , so is a plausible and easy to handle number). If we know the satelites location to an uncertainty of 1cm then the uncertainty on its velocity implied by the uncertainty principle is 1 part in 10^39 (i.e. completely negligable).[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 13:10, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

:Well, this is progress indeed. Could you please provide references to support the contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects?

:Also, as an aside, how do you say that fundamental uncertainties described by quantum mechanics relate to the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine? Not sure I follow you there. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 23:36, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::It's basic logic. Unless someone denies [[quantum mechanics]] and the fundamental uncertainties it describes -- and many [[Relativists]] do deny it -- then synchronization will be required as a logical result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Do you have any references? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I haven't looked ... nor is it necessary to. I wouldn't look for references to confirm any logical statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Really? Is it fair to say then that this contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects is not something that you have read about but rather something that you yourself concluded from your own knowledge of quantum mechanics and GPS systems? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::P.S. As a result of this discussion I found a couple of articles which appear to confirm that GPS satellites have their clocks adjusted by about 38,000 nanoseconds per day before launch in compliance with relitavistic predictions (both Special and General Relativity are taken into account). The articles are [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp here] and [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html here]. Is there really any question that this is what is happening? I would think that if these sources are to be questioned that some sort of reference should be provided. A mere assertion that the adjustments are as a result of quantum mechanical effects and that it is a matter of logic would not usually be enough for any serious encyclopedia. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::The references are [[hearsay]]. Logic is far more compelling, more efficient, and more likely to lead to the correct result.

::::::To take the analogy mentioned above, if you agree that [[perpetual motion machines]] are impossible, what is the reason?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:45, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Quantum mechanics gives a probabilistic model of phenomena. Indeed, the page you linked for quantum mechanics states:
::"If we measure such an observable, generally the wave function does not predict exactly which value we will obtain. Instead, the wave function gives us the probability that a certain value will be obtained."
:If this is the case, that means that Quantum mechanical phenomena are ''unpredictable''. How is it that clock adjustments can be made based on unpredictable events, ie, probabilities?
:I'd also like to know how the GPS system is affected by these phenomena.
:--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 01:51, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Logic is a nice thing. But engineers like to calculate. So could you give us a Ballpark estimate for the quantum mechanic effects which come into play here? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:(Edit conflict x2) Andy, as a lawyer I can assure you that hearsay is a [[legal]] concept which is of little use in this sort of scientific discussion. Whilst I understand that non-legally trained people sometimes confuse the nature and applicability of the concept, I can confirm that it has no relevance here.

:The difficulty here arises from your wanting to assert the truth of a matter without providing either references or even the basis for you own logic. Just saying "quantum mechanics" is hardly enlightening. Do you deny that GPS satellite clocks are adjusted by approximately 38,000 nanoseconds as referred to in the references that I provided? If not, do you say that there is a quantum calculation that accounts for that adjustment? What is that quantum calculation and what is it based on? I am really having difficulty in understanding the basis for all of this. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 02:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, this reference [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] has been pointed out to you several times already. Since it is published by folks actually working on the GPS system, I hardly think that it qualifies as 'hearsay'. It contains all the relevant relativistic equations, which are not really that complicated, and derives the 38 nanosecond figure quoted above. An assertion on scientific matters without any evidence can't really be taken seriously. Can we please see the quantum mechanical equations and calculations which come up with the same or similar result? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, I'm inclined to suspect that your disbelief in relativity is so strong that you are unwilling to consider any evidence which might indicate that relativity could be correct, and are hence flailing around looking for some other explanation as to what actually happens (GPS clock adjustment by 38 ns). Would you care to comment on my suspicion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Quote: "A logical statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false." [http://www.ontotext.com/factforge/logical-statement].

So Aschlafly, why don't you need a reference to confirm a logical statement? Just because a statement is logical doesn't mean that it is true. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

: It would be helpful to have a more modern reference. GPS switched to a system of daily updates to the satellites. Maybe those relativistic formulas cause errors that require daily clock synchronizations to correct. Not likely. But to prove the point we ought to find a reference that says that the satellites still use the 38 ns/day relativistic adjustments, and that the daily corrections are much smaller than that. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:18, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::The best I've found so far is [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf] from Physics Today, May 2002. This confirms the initial adjustment and mentions further on page 7: "Additional small frequency offsets arise from clock drift, environmental changes, and other unavoidable effects such as the inability to launch the satellite into an orbit with precisely the desired semimajor axis. The satellite clock frequencies are adjusted so that they remain as close as possible to the frequency of the Naval Observatory's clock ensemble." Unfortunately it doesn't give the actual size of the adjustments, thought the word 'small' does indicate it as being much less than the initial adjustment. I rather like the last sentence of this paper: "Ordinary users of the GPS, though they may not need to be aware of it, have thus become dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:26, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The lack of evidence, amid so much political pressure to prove it, is indicative that no proof can be found. Notice how no [[Nobel Prize]]s have been given for GPS confirming the [[Theory of Relativity]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:01, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::If you want to use the [[Nobel Prize]] as evidence against relativity, might I direct you to:
:::http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/relativity/
:::Where the official Nobel Prize website discusses various experiments related to relativity, and the relevant [[Nobel Prize]]s awarded for them.
:::--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:32, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::::GPS is not even on that overly broad list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, I've tried to confine my evidence to items which not even you can claim as 'hearsay'. A simple Google search turns up hundreds of references linking GPS and relativity, but in view of your earlier dismissal of such as hearsay, I thought I'd better stick to indisputable items. At least there is some fairly convincing evidence linking GPS with relativity (including all the relevant equations and the result of applying these equations), unlike your assertion linking GPS with quantum mechanics, where you have produced precisely zero evidence. You still haven't responded to my comments and question re 'logical statements' above. So, where is the evidence for your assertion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 02:46, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:::There is no credible evidence that the [[Theory of Relativity]] had anything to do with the development of GPS. In addition, not even the pro-Relativity [[Nobel Prize]] [[liberals]] say that GPS proves the theory.

:::My comment about [[quantum mechanics]] was in response to a question about why synchronization is needed. Unless someone thinks that [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible (have you answered my question about that?), then synchronization will be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Could you please clarify what the connection between synchronisation, quantum mechanics and perpetual motion machines is? From what I've learned, clock synchronisation between the satellites is necessary because any signal between them travels at a finite speed, namely the speed of light. Do you deny that? The claim is that in order to compute the signal travel time and thus to synchronize the clocks correctly, the relative velocities and the differences in gravitational potential due to the different altitudes of the satellites (and Earth's surface) have to be taken into account. Do you think that is wrong? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:56, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

Lets stick to the subject (GPS and relativity); perpetual motion is a complete red herring, and I'm not sure how Nobel prizes come into the picture (we're debating science, not prizes).
On the basis of '''actual evidence produced''' in this discussion so far, I think that we can confidently state four facts:
#Prior to launch, the clock in a GPS satellite is set to run about 38 nanoseconds/day different from an otherwise identical clock on the earth's surface.
#When in orbit the GPS clock then appears to tick at the same rate as an identical clock on the earth's surface.
#Equations based on the theory of relativity accurately come up with this figure of around 38 nanoseconds.
#No evidence has been produced to show how quantum mechanics is involved.

If anyone disagrees with any of the above, they need to bear in mind ('''emphasis''' added):
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 1 Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''.
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 2 '''Always cite''' and give credit to your sources.
:from Conservapedia:Guidelines/Reliability 4 A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated.

Hope this summary helps. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:41, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

: That is the story as I have heard it. Except that I heard that the 38 ns/day adjustment was remotely switchable, because of relativity skeptics who did not believe that it would be necessary. I also don't agree that GPS is "dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." The GPS system has the ability to measure the daily adjustments that it needs. So even with any relativity theory or Einstein conception, it could just make those 38 ns/day adjustments and GPS would have all the accuracy it has today. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::In the summary I was careful to stick to facts supported by evidence, and to avoid saying "GPS is dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time", even though the two main references I have quoted do in fact say this. All I said was that the adjustment calculated according to relativity agrees with the actual adjustment, from which one might reasonably conclude, in this instance at least, that relativity is consistent with reality. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 15:44, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I note that no one has proposed any credible alternative theory as to why the orbiting clocks tick at a different speed from surface clocks, so until some better theory comes along I'm quite happy to stick with relativity. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:In the last week, apart from one clarification question from [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], no one has challenged the 'four facts' summary I provided above. According I will shortly move a copy of this summary along with the relevant references in to the talk pages of other relevant articles, and will then update those articles to match. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 13:36, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Beware: in your fact #1, the correction is 38 '''micro'''seconds, not '''nano'''seconds. See [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html]. My own rough calculations also agree that it's microseconds. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 15:05, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Well spotted, Judy. I've gone back to one of the sources and it is indeed 38 microseconds. Thank you for the correction. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:10, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
All right, can Andy Schlafly explain how adjusting the exponent in the law of gravity accounts for the orbits of the other planets? You know the reason why no one considers that as an alternative? Are you ready?! '''Because it doesn't work!''' And can you tell me why Einstein came up with GR? Was it to explain the orbit of Mercury? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 21:36, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:::In response to your first question, the reason is purely political. Any grad student who suggests that tweaking the exponent in Newtonian mechanics is an interesting approach worth more attention will thereby eliminate his chances for obtaining a PhD.

:::In response to your second point, GR was tweaked to explain the Mercury perihelion precession, but now the more precisely observed data fail to match the theory. Grad students and Nobel Prize wannabes are clever enough to keep quiet about it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:56, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

Andy: You make an interesting point about people not thinking that the Newcomb/Hall theory of planetary precession is an interesting approach—I hadn't thought about that aversion. I'm not sure why you think that people who take an interest in that theory would eliminate their chances of getting a PhD—people take an interest in historical aspects of science all the time. I can think of a few discarded scientific theories that are commonly discussed in science classes: The Ptolemaic theory of the solar system, the "plum pudding" model of the atom, and the phlogiston theory of combustion come to mind. The first two are very commonly taught in science classes. I think this is because they do a very good job of illustrating the scientific method and the value of careful analytical thinking. The phlogiston theory also illustrates careful thinking, but it isn't discussed in science classes nearly as much. My guess is that this is because it's harder to visualize. You can easily make a diagram in a textbook of the epicycles of Ptolemy and the ellipses of Kepler. And the model of electrons circling the nucleus, as per the Rutherford atom, is pretty much the logo for all things atomic. Lavoisier's (and others') experiments with combustion don't make for as dramatic an illustration.

The Simon Newcomb / Asaph Hall theory of planetary precession, unfortunately, seems to be even less photogenic. The effect being explained, 43 arcseconds per century, may be hard to get sudents excited about. But I doubt whether anyone jeopardizes their academic or research careers by being interested in it.

Idea: How about if I write some articles about the 4 theories (Ptolemy/Kepler, pudding/Rutherford, phlogiston/oxidation, and Newcomb/Einstein)? We could create a category for discarded scientific theories.

But I won't get to it any time soon. I'm very busy at Ameriwiki.

By the way, I have to thank you for the "E=mc^2" article. It really sharpened my thinking about the issues involved in special relativity, and it contributed to the outline of the articles I'm writing at Ameriwiki.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:40, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

== Logic and the GPS ==

*Atomic watches work on the Earth quite fine
*[[Quantum mechanics]] describe the physics of ''very small length and energy scales''
*Satellites are macroscopic objects.
*Even a precision of 1cm on the surface of the Earth isn't a very small length.

So which kind of logic tells us that quantum mechanical effects influence the synchronization of the clocks? Why are not only the scientists involved lying, but also their calculations?

For me it seems to be a logical conclusion that you, Aschlafly, are even more knowledgeable of Greek than of Science! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:He's trying to apply the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle to satellites? Are you kidding me? That principle is used for things at the ATOMIC LEVEL! Using ANYTHING with regards to quantum mechanics in an argument about satellites is absurdism and/or ignorance of the subject matter! Seriously Andy, I know you hate the Theory of Relativity, but you should really leave science to those who understand it. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 16:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::For someone who thinks that Brownian motion is about motion at the sub-atomic level your suggestions of scientific superiority ring hollow.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 10:15, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

== Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession ==

I removed the phrase "[precession can be understood by] factoring in the gravitational pull due to other planets". The first sentence of that paragraph says the opposite, that the extra precession cannot be understood "even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets". Unless I'm reading it wrong, it sounded like a contradiction. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 16:51, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:Where is the contradiction? If the exponent in Newtonian gravity is slightly adjusted, then it predicts the Mercury precession.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:01, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I'm curious as to the justification for changing a formula in Newtonian gravity. Do you change it for every situation, or just for this one special case? Can you give us the adjusted formula, and specify the exact change? For such a change in physics which has been in use for over 250 years I would like to see a reference, preferably several good references. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:25, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
:::The old Newcomb-Hall hypothesis. [http://books.google.at/books?id=oKGlHjDzGjQC&lpg=PA379&dq=newcomb%20hall%20precession&pg=PA379#v=onepage&q=newcomb%20hall%20precession&f=false This book] says that it contradicts the observations of the orbit of the moon, which rules out a change of exponent of of the required magnitude. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 18:30, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::The contributors to this section might be pleased to see that the issue has been discussed, at great length, right here at Conservapedia. An entire debate page was created for it: [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity%3F]] This was a discussion that spilled over from [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].

::Furthermore, the subject was discussed on the relativity page itself, in the section [[Theory_of_relativity#Experimental_Verification_of_Relativity]]. There is a large chart showing the precessions of the planets under the Newcomb-Hall theory and under general relativity. They are the last two columns of the chart. The actual observations match the last column very well (see [http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm], taking into account that it's very hard to get accurate reading on the outer planets, since their precession is so small.

::One can see that the last two columns of the chart match only for Mercury. That is, Newcomb and Hall "tweaked" the exponent to the value of 2.000000157 in order to get Mercury's precession correct.

::Under the Newcomb-Hall theory, the precession of any orbiting body would be .000000078 revolutions per orbit. This works for Mercury, but is too high for the other planets, and way too high for the Moon. This is why the theory was discarded. With modern artificial satellites, such as the International Space Station, an orbit takes only an hour and a half, and the precession would be enormous. The clearly wrong value for the Moon is why the Newcomb-Hall theory was quickly discarded.

::Under general relativity, we know that the precession per orbit is proportional to the square of the planet's orbital velocity. Mercury has the highest velocity, so it has readily measurable precession. Artificial satellites are much slower, and the Moon is slower still.

::I personally don't see accepting the possible truth of such a thoroughly discredited theory as evidence of open-mindedness, but open-mindedness is admittedly a very tricky issue. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:11, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

::::"Mathematical physicists" (an [[oxymoron]] - I'll add it to the list) insisted that it was impossible for the exponent in Newtonian gravity to be anything other than '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). With the political push to promote the [[Theory of Relativity]], the influence of the mathematical physicists rose too, and that is what shut down the valid inquiry into whether the Newtonian exponent should be '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). But any logical inquiry must admit the possibility, or even the likelihood, that it would not be exactly 2 (or -2).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:31, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

The issue here is not whether the exponent is precisely two or not but that you have to have a model which explains all (or at least as many as possible) observations. To get the precision of Mercury right you produce a model which then fails to explain the observed precession of every other body in the solar system. This seems to be a good experimental demonstration that Newcomb-Hall is wrong (or least inadequate as a model). [[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:32, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] got us on the subject of the Newtonian exponent. My comment makes no mention of it. I'll answer his original question "where's the contradiction?": I quoted two sentences, both containing the phrase "other planets". One sentence said the precession '''can''' be understood by including the effects of the other planets, whereas the other said the precession '''cannot''' be understood that way. It is just rhetoric. The contradiction has little to do with physics. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 12:06, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

OK, how do you explain that adjusting the exponent in Newtonian gravity doesn't account for the orbits of the other planets? You say it has to do with politics. It has nothing to do with politics--the other theory just doesn't work! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:33, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

:I doubt the minor tweak in the exponent would affect the other orbits. The orbit of Mercury would be far more sensitive to such a tweak than anything else.

:The broader question remains: isn't the [[censorship]] of any alternative to the [[Theory of Relativity]] obvious? If the theory were correct, then there would be no need for [[liberals]] to censor debate or alternative theories.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

::*''I doubt the minor tweak in the exponent would affect the other orbits.'' Do you have any calculations which would affirm this belief of yours? AFAIK, Simon Newcomb's and Asaph Hall's idea was discarded when excellent measurements for the Moon were made by Ernest W. Brown which didn't fit the predictions of Newcomb and Hall. This was in the early 20th century...
::*Today Computer simulations allow for an easy test of alternatives to Newton's exponent. Any student should be able to create one and see for himself that it doesn't work out.
::*The influence of the exponent on ''apsidal angles'' was discussed be Newton himself. It's still of interest today: a central system in which the exponent is 1 is easily imaginable (swing a weight on a spring around your head). And you will find publications on these subjects still today.
::That said:
::*Why don't you run a simulation for yourself?
::*''Alternative theories'' are discussed - and mostly discarded. That's the way physics works. Theories doesn't become true because you ''believe'' in them, they become more and more trustworthy when their predictions are verified over and over again.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:40, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

:::The Newcomb-Hall theory doesn't need anyone, liberal or otherwise, to censor it. It censors itself, by being wrong. It has been shown to be wrong many times, including Ernest Brown's observations, and some data published right here at [[Theory of relativity#Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity|Conservapedia]].

:::Probably the best refutation at present is with artificial satellites, since their orbital period is so short. If you want to argue for the Newcomb-Hall theory, your best bet would be to find data showing that the periapsis of the International Space Station precesses by .013 degrees per month. That is an enormous precession, easily observed. The orbital eccentricity is only .001, but, since the ISS is so close and is in constant contact by radio and radar, there should be extremely good data. You should probably contact the author of the [http://www.heavens-above.com/ Heavens Above] web site. It has a huge amount of information on things like this.

:::I think that you will find that what you are up against is not liberals, but facts. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 12:44, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence of article contradicted by the rest ==

Given that main body of the article now largely deals with the things GR can explain (including the precession of Mercury) should not the first sentance be changed?[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:37, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:GR is '''disproven''''' now by the precession of Mercury. See [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

I checked [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] and the number for the observed precession in the note are unreferenced. To be credible there has to be a reference for this number.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 12:11, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-05-13T16:44:47Z

JudyJ: /* Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession */

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

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

For older discussions, see the archive [[Talk:Theory of relativity/index|index]]. 
|valign="top" style="text-align:right"|[[Image:Conservlogo.png|65px]]
|}


== Mass depending on direction ==

The article states:
:''There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical.''

As [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] on 8 July 2007 (EDT): ''This paragraph is nonsense [..] The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

The observation sited in the first sentence of this article has been discredited. [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp] It appears that a loose fiber-optics cable is to blame for the misreadings. I suggest editing this first sentence, and any other mention of this in the article.--[[User:CarloP|CarloP]] 18:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)

:Issues concerning the neutrino experiment are not yet fully resolved. No problam: I replaced it with another counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?

Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:''Conservapedia'' seeks the truth, not merely what the [[lamestream media]] claim is the truth. Moreover, once one accepts a logical fallacy, then anything false can be proven from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:: Ahh.... But the fact that the conclusion is false does not necessarily render the basis false. I could say "Andy Schlafly founded Conservapedia and therefore I am a pig monkey." I am not a pig monkey, and even if I were, that has nothing to do with you founding this website. But you still did. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:58, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:When looking around the internet, it is obvious that Conservapedia's classification of relativity as [[pseudoscience]] is a source of some amusement and contempt. Aschlafly, could you please answer the two questions I raised above? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:27, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, liberal peer pressure from "around the internet" does not illuminate the truth. If what liberals on the internet said made a dime's bit of difference, then the [[Bible]] would not be the best selling book (by far) and the percentage of people who are [[conservative]] would not be growing (as it does).

::"Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?" Because it's false, it confuses people, it misleads people into stop reading the Bible, and its orthodoxy interferes with the advancement of science for the benefit of all. Other than that, it's not a bad theory!

::"Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition?" The only bias is by liberals who shout down any criticism of the theory. If the theory were so clearly true, then there would be no need for some liberals to rely on [[censorship]] in propping it up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I note that anyone using a GPS is relying on the Theory of Relativity being true, since calculations derived from Relativity are used within a GPS. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:GPS does '''''not''''' rely on the [[Theory of Relativity]], and this has been thoroughly explained on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Hi Aschlafly, I've located at least some of the discussion re GPS in the archives of this talk page, and there a lot of references for me to examine before I can make any further serious comments; certainly there are some references which appear to state that GPS relies on relativity. Can you perhaps draw my attention to what you consider the most important (half-dozen or so) references which indicate that the GPS system does NOT rely on relativity so that I have somewhere to start from? In the meantime I'll continue editing and improving less controversial articles as I have been doing for the last two months (my talk page lists nearly 40 articles I can usefully contribute to). [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:::This note 7 is on [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]:

::::Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

:::The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing: the small effects claimed by the special and general theories nearly cancel each other out for orbiting satellites. From an engineering perspective, it makes far more sense simply to adjust the clocks using synchronization rather than relying on (dubious) theoretical claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Another false claim because of sloppy reading: In the same source by The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, you can find how the authors Fliegel and DiEsposti describe what is happening to the clocks in the satellites:
''Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45 × 10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec. (p. 193).

The text is about the necessity of ''further'' corrections by the ''operational control system'' - there are corrections ''already'' installed in the clocks!

''The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing:'' This sentence is wrong. It has shown to be wrong a couple of times, so it starts to become a lie. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:12, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Theory of Relativity]] was not used to develop GPS, nor would it be sensible to waste time and money doing so. Synchronization is cheaper, simpler, and more reliable. The above quote does not contradict this obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

::The fact that these offsets are implemented in the clocks '''in accord with the theory of relativity''' as you can read in the very source you quoted shows that the [[Theory of Relativity]] is used in the GPS - and this from the very beginning of the project! Please, start to read your sources - completely! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:37, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Please, before we get into any more debate, could someone supply some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:41, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly took his quote from [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti (though he probably isn't aware of this). The paper is about relativistic effects due to moving GPS-'''''receivers''''' (or GPS-receivers in high altitudes) and comes to the conclusion, that at the moment, they don't have to include additional relativistic corrections.

:Aschlafly interprets this as if ''no'' relativistic corrections are implemented in the GPS.
:However, in the paper itself, you will find the section I quoted above, where the authors describe such very corrections within the clocks of the satellites.
:I'm afraid that Aschlafly won't come up with ''some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS'' as there aren't any.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:53, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Folks, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the [[Theory of Relativity]] was used to design GPS. That burden includes describing who, when, where, how, and why. It didn't happen. And if it did, the person who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:It looks to me as if you are trying to put impossible conditions prior to any debate. To avoid a lengthy debate all you have to do is produce some actual references which support your point of view. Is this too much to ask?

:If it didn't happen then you should be able to produce some evidence of this, so '''some actual references please'''. The only 'evidence' you have produced so far is an out-of-context quote from a paper which is concerned primarily with GPS receivers (that same paper mentions the use of relativity-related adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellite transmitters). Surely you must have more than this. Will you accept evidence from engineers and companies involved in designing and building the GPS system? If not, why not? Who would you accept evidence from? The US Department of Defense? Do you seriously expect a member of the public to be able to access internal design documents as your "who, when, where, how, and why" statement implies?

:If you care to check my contribution history you will see that I am actively contributing non-controversial information to articles. This discussion re GPS etc. is only a small part of my activities on Conservapedia. Since I've barely started on considering and consolidating what evidence there is re GPS I would rather have a week or so to look at the evidence before getting into a debate. This should give you ample time to come up with some references to support the separation of GPS and relativity. Simple searches via Google turn up numerous instances where relativity is claimed to be relevant to GPS, but I can't find anything to the contrary and '''I need your help to do so'''. I would really like to see evidence from '''both sides''' of the discussion before entering the debate, so '''some actual references please'''. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 19:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, you're requesting proof that something didn't happen. Moreover, someone with an engineering background (such as myself) would not expect it to have happened. It is like asking for a reference that no green cheese was found on the Moon. No such scientific reference is likely to exist, nor would anyone expect such a reference to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:28, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:: Every single article on GPS says that relativistic adjustments are made to the satellite clocks. Some give the formulas and some give quantitative data on the adjustments. Textbooks explain why the adjustments are necessary. I don't see any reason to doubt that GPS uses relativistic adjustments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:52, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::GPS does make synchronizing adjustments. Call them whatever you like, but those adjustments are not made based on predictions by the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Indeed, it would be a silly waste of time and money to synchronize in such a manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Unless you drive the flying Delorean from ''Back to the Future'', relativity would say that its effect on your car when you're driving at normal speeds is so small it need not be accounting for. The normal error for GPS (about 40 feet) is many magnitudes higher than the error relativity would cause. Now, the GPS in the Flying DeLorean would be another issue. But until that's invented, let's not worry about it, ok? Of course, if you were orienteering, your speed would be even slower than if you were driving. Indeed, if you were moving at any normal speed (even a supersonic jet), relativity would be incredibly small (assuming that it exists as scientists explain it). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:14, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::''GPS does make synchronizing adjustments'' Not only simple synchronizing: read the specifications for the GPS, read the sources ''in full'' which you are quoting, and you will see that all these engineers and scientists don't give a damn that you think that they are wasting ''time and money''.
:::::Aschlafly, your position is only tenable as you are willing to ignore most of the data which is presented to you. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you believe very firmly that relativity has nothing to do with GPS, even though you are unwilling to present any evidence to support this belief, and wish to put severe restrictions on what 'proof' of the relationship other folks may present. I raised some five questions above as to what sort of evidence you might consider. Could you please answer these questions.

::I'd like to ask Mr. Schafly if he could explain what the clock adjustments on GPS satellites are for, the article is not clear, and neither is anything on this talk page.--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:44, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Cahnkj, herewith a summary of the clock-adjustment situation as I (RolandPlankton) see it. Newton's equations of motions say nothing about how clocks keep time. Einstein's equations of relativity imply that identical clocks will vary in their timekeeping (tick at different rates) if they are travelling at different speeds, or if they are at different heights in a gravitational field, or if they are subject to different accelerations; see [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview]. Now the satellites used in the GPS system require very accurate clocks which are in step with ground-based clocks. The paper just quoted provides the various relativistic equations which apply - the satellites are travelling faster than a ground-based receiver, and are at a different height in a gravitational field. Prior to launch the clocks in the GPS satellites are deliberately set to a different tick rate from ground-based clocks, so that when they are in orbit the clocks will appear to tick at the same rate; the difference in tick rates is about 38 nanoseconds per day, and this adjustment can be calculated from the relevant relativistic equations.

:::But the problem is that Aschlafly rejects the Theory of Relativity, and hence rejects any calculation based on that. The only serious argument he has put forth on this current talk page (see preceding section) is an appeal to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Truth the truth]; the quote he provides above is also demolished above. You may wish to consult [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], which is rebutted point by point in [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].

:::Hope this doesn't add too much to the confusion. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 12:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Mr. Schlafly states above that "the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the Theory of Relativity was used to design GPS." (This is a fair requirement, and it seems as this has been done when AugustO referred to the Fliegel and DiEsposti paper above.)

::::But really, isn't the burden of proof on anyone who claims ''anything'' on this site, since Conservapedia Commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable" and Commandment #2 states that users should "always cite and give credit to <nowiki>[their]</nowiki> sources?" --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 19:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Good point. Anyone who asserts ''on this site'' that GPS was designed based on the [[Theory of Relativity]] needs to prove the claim. Note that the claim is implausible because it is cheaper, easier, and more precise to synchronize GPS based on observations rather than theoretical speculation. Also note that no [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for verification of the [[Theory of Relativity]] with GPS.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:55, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

===A Separate Question for Mr. Schlafly About References===

::Aschlafly, as a separate issue, in view of of your apparent attitude to references, could I ask you to have a look at the articles I have been working on over the last two months: [[Pi]], [[Programming language]], [[Compiler]], and the work-in-progress [[Chomsky hierarchy]]. Obviously I'm only asking you to consider the changes I have made. In particular, can you check if the references are acceptable to you, and can you also check that the general style and level of writing is in accordance with Conservapedia's aims? The next article I intend to turn my intention to is [[Context-Free Grammar]], since it seems to me that this fails to satisfy [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]] "Articles on complex topics need an introduction which assumes little or no previous knowledge". [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:03, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Roland, your good edits are appreciated and I've seen no complaints about them. I agree that the [[Context-Free Grammar]] would benefit from a better introduction and look forward to reading what you add there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

A good question was raised above: if synchronization to GPS is not due to the [[Theory of Relativity]], then what is it due to?

And the answer is simply this: [[quantum mechanics]]. There are fundamental uncertainties, and those uncertainties will lead to clock differences. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible. It isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

Where to start with this. This is so bad it isn't even wrong. Could I respectfully suggest that you confine your efforts to areas you understand at least a little bit.

The impossibility of perpetual motion has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. It comes from the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics and predates quantum mechanics by at least 100 years.

The uncertainty principle is also completely irrelevant. If we imagine a 100 kg satellite moving at a velocity of approximately 100 km/s (this is three times the earth's velocity , so is a plausible and easy to handle number). If we know the satelites location to an uncertainty of 1cm then the uncertainty on its velocity implied by the uncertainty principle is 1 part in 10^39 (i.e. completely negligable).[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 13:10, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

:Well, this is progress indeed. Could you please provide references to support the contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects?

:Also, as an aside, how do you say that fundamental uncertainties described by quantum mechanics relate to the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine? Not sure I follow you there. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 23:36, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::It's basic logic. Unless someone denies [[quantum mechanics]] and the fundamental uncertainties it describes -- and many [[Relativists]] do deny it -- then synchronization will be required as a logical result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Do you have any references? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I haven't looked ... nor is it necessary to. I wouldn't look for references to confirm any logical statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Really? Is it fair to say then that this contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects is not something that you have read about but rather something that you yourself concluded from your own knowledge of quantum mechanics and GPS systems? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::P.S. As a result of this discussion I found a couple of articles which appear to confirm that GPS satellites have their clocks adjusted by about 38,000 nanoseconds per day before launch in compliance with relitavistic predictions (both Special and General Relativity are taken into account). The articles are [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp here] and [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html here]. Is there really any question that this is what is happening? I would think that if these sources are to be questioned that some sort of reference should be provided. A mere assertion that the adjustments are as a result of quantum mechanical effects and that it is a matter of logic would not usually be enough for any serious encyclopedia. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::The references are [[hearsay]]. Logic is far more compelling, more efficient, and more likely to lead to the correct result.

::::::To take the analogy mentioned above, if you agree that [[perpetual motion machines]] are impossible, what is the reason?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:45, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Quantum mechanics gives a probabilistic model of phenomena. Indeed, the page you linked for quantum mechanics states:
::"If we measure such an observable, generally the wave function does not predict exactly which value we will obtain. Instead, the wave function gives us the probability that a certain value will be obtained."
:If this is the case, that means that Quantum mechanical phenomena are ''unpredictable''. How is it that clock adjustments can be made based on unpredictable events, ie, probabilities?
:I'd also like to know how the GPS system is affected by these phenomena.
:--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 01:51, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Logic is a nice thing. But engineers like to calculate. So could you give us a Ballpark estimate for the quantum mechanic effects which come into play here? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:(Edit conflict x2) Andy, as a lawyer I can assure you that hearsay is a [[legal]] concept which is of little use in this sort of scientific discussion. Whilst I understand that non-legally trained people sometimes confuse the nature and applicability of the concept, I can confirm that it has no relevance here.

:The difficulty here arises from your wanting to assert the truth of a matter without providing either references or even the basis for you own logic. Just saying "quantum mechanics" is hardly enlightening. Do you deny that GPS satellite clocks are adjusted by approximately 38,000 nanoseconds as referred to in the references that I provided? If not, do you say that there is a quantum calculation that accounts for that adjustment? What is that quantum calculation and what is it based on? I am really having difficulty in understanding the basis for all of this. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 02:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, this reference [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] has been pointed out to you several times already. Since it is published by folks actually working on the GPS system, I hardly think that it qualifies as 'hearsay'. It contains all the relevant relativistic equations, which are not really that complicated, and derives the 38 nanosecond figure quoted above. An assertion on scientific matters without any evidence can't really be taken seriously. Can we please see the quantum mechanical equations and calculations which come up with the same or similar result? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, I'm inclined to suspect that your disbelief in relativity is so strong that you are unwilling to consider any evidence which might indicate that relativity could be correct, and are hence flailing around looking for some other explanation as to what actually happens (GPS clock adjustment by 38 ns). Would you care to comment on my suspicion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Quote: "A logical statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false." [http://www.ontotext.com/factforge/logical-statement].

So Aschlafly, why don't you need a reference to confirm a logical statement? Just because a statement is logical doesn't mean that it is true. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

: It would be helpful to have a more modern reference. GPS switched to a system of daily updates to the satellites. Maybe those relativistic formulas cause errors that require daily clock synchronizations to correct. Not likely. But to prove the point we ought to find a reference that says that the satellites still use the 38 ns/day relativistic adjustments, and that the daily corrections are much smaller than that. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:18, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::The best I've found so far is [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf] from Physics Today, May 2002. This confirms the initial adjustment and mentions further on page 7: "Additional small frequency offsets arise from clock drift, environmental changes, and other unavoidable effects such as the inability to launch the satellite into an orbit with precisely the desired semimajor axis. The satellite clock frequencies are adjusted so that they remain as close as possible to the frequency of the Naval Observatory's clock ensemble." Unfortunately it doesn't give the actual size of the adjustments, thought the word 'small' does indicate it as being much less than the initial adjustment. I rather like the last sentence of this paper: "Ordinary users of the GPS, though they may not need to be aware of it, have thus become dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:26, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The lack of evidence, amid so much political pressure to prove it, is indicative that no proof can be found. Notice how no [[Nobel Prize]]s have been given for GPS confirming the [[Theory of Relativity]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:01, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::If you want to use the [[Nobel Prize]] as evidence against relativity, might I direct you to:
:::http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/relativity/
:::Where the official Nobel Prize website discusses various experiments related to relativity, and the relevant [[Nobel Prize]]s awarded for them.
:::--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:32, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::::GPS is not even on that overly broad list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, I've tried to confine my evidence to items which not even you can claim as 'hearsay'. A simple Google search turns up hundreds of references linking GPS and relativity, but in view of your earlier dismissal of such as hearsay, I thought I'd better stick to indisputable items. At least there is some fairly convincing evidence linking GPS with relativity (including all the relevant equations and the result of applying these equations), unlike your assertion linking GPS with quantum mechanics, where you have produced precisely zero evidence. You still haven't responded to my comments and question re 'logical statements' above. So, where is the evidence for your assertion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 02:46, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:::There is no credible evidence that the [[Theory of Relativity]] had anything to do with the development of GPS. In addition, not even the pro-Relativity [[Nobel Prize]] [[liberals]] say that GPS proves the theory.

:::My comment about [[quantum mechanics]] was in response to a question about why synchronization is needed. Unless someone thinks that [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible (have you answered my question about that?), then synchronization will be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Could you please clarify what the connection between synchronisation, quantum mechanics and perpetual motion machines is? From what I've learned, clock synchronisation between the satellites is necessary because any signal between them travels at a finite speed, namely the speed of light. Do you deny that? The claim is that in order to compute the signal travel time and thus to synchronize the clocks correctly, the relative velocities and the differences in gravitational potential due to the different altitudes of the satellites (and Earth's surface) have to be taken into account. Do you think that is wrong? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:56, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

Lets stick to the subject (GPS and relativity); perpetual motion is a complete red herring, and I'm not sure how Nobel prizes come into the picture (we're debating science, not prizes).
On the basis of '''actual evidence produced''' in this discussion so far, I think that we can confidently state four facts:
#Prior to launch, the clock in a GPS satellite is set to run about 38 nanoseconds/day different from an otherwise identical clock on the earth's surface.
#When in orbit the GPS clock then appears to tick at the same rate as an identical clock on the earth's surface.
#Equations based on the theory of relativity accurately come up with this figure of around 38 nanoseconds.
#No evidence has been produced to show how quantum mechanics is involved.

If anyone disagrees with any of the above, they need to bear in mind ('''emphasis''' added):
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 1 Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''.
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 2 '''Always cite''' and give credit to your sources.
:from Conservapedia:Guidelines/Reliability 4 A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated.

Hope this summary helps. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:41, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

: That is the story as I have heard it. Except that I heard that the 38 ns/day adjustment was remotely switchable, because of relativity skeptics who did not believe that it would be necessary. I also don't agree that GPS is "dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." The GPS system has the ability to measure the daily adjustments that it needs. So even with any relativity theory or Einstein conception, it could just make those 38 ns/day adjustments and GPS would have all the accuracy it has today. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::In the summary I was careful to stick to facts supported by evidence, and to avoid saying "GPS is dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time", even though the two main references I have quoted do in fact say this. All I said was that the adjustment calculated according to relativity agrees with the actual adjustment, from which one might reasonably conclude, in this instance at least, that relativity is consistent with reality. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 15:44, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I note that no one has proposed any credible alternative theory as to why the orbiting clocks tick at a different speed from surface clocks, so until some better theory comes along I'm quite happy to stick with relativity. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:In the last week, apart from one clarification question from [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], no one has challenged the 'four facts' summary I provided above. According I will shortly move a copy of this summary along with the relevant references in to the talk pages of other relevant articles, and will then update those articles to match. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 13:36, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Beware: in your fact #1, the correction is 38 '''micro'''seconds, not '''nano'''seconds. See [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html]. My own rough calculations also agree that it's microseconds. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 15:05, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Well spotted, Judy. I've gone back to one of the sources and it is indeed 38 microseconds. Thank you for the correction. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:10, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
All right, can Andy Schlafly explain how adjusting the exponent in the law of gravity accounts for the orbits of the other planets? You know the reason why no one considers that as an alternative? Are you ready?! '''Because it doesn't work!''' And can you tell me why Einstein came up with GR? Was it to explain the orbit of Mercury? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 21:36, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:::In response to your first question, the reason is purely political. Any grad student who suggests that tweaking the exponent in Newtonian mechanics is an interesting approach worth more attention will thereby eliminate his chances for obtaining a PhD.

:::In response to your second point, GR was tweaked to explain the Mercury perihelion precession, but now the more precisely observed data fail to match the theory. Grad students and Nobel Prize wannabes are clever enough to keep quiet about it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:56, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

Andy: You make an interesting point about people not thinking that the Newcomb/Hall theory of planetary precession is an interesting approach—I hadn't thought about that aversion. I'm not sure why you think that people who take an interest in that theory would eliminate their chances of getting a PhD—people take an interest in historical aspects of science all the time. I can think of a few discarded scientific theories that are commonly discussed in science classes: The Ptolemaic theory of the solar system, the "plum pudding" model of the atom, and the phlogiston theory of combustion come to mind. The first two are very commonly taught in science classes. I think this is because they do a very good job of illustrating the scientific method and the value of careful analytical thinking. The phlogiston theory also illustrates careful thinking, but it isn't discussed in science classes nearly as much. My guess is that this is because it's harder to visualize. You can easily make a diagram in a textbook of the epicycles of Ptolemy and the ellipses of Kepler. And the model of electrons circling the nucleus, as per the Rutherford atom, is pretty much the logo for all things atomic. Lavoisier's (and others') experiments with combustion don't make for as dramatic an illustration.

The Simon Newcomb / Asaph Hall theory of planetary precession, unfortunately, seems to be even less photogenic. The effect being explained, 43 arcseconds per century, may be hard to get sudents excited about. But I doubt whether anyone jeopardizes their academic or research careers by being interested in it.

Idea: How about if I write some articles about the 4 theories (Ptolemy/Kepler, pudding/Rutherford, phlogiston/oxidation, and Newcomb/Einstein)? We could create a category for discarded scientific theories.

But I won't get to it any time soon. I'm very busy at Ameriwiki.

By the way, I have to thank you for the "E=mc^2" article. It really sharpened my thinking about the issues involved in special relativity, and it contributed to the outline of the articles I'm writing at Ameriwiki.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:40, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

== Logic and the GPS ==

*Atomic watches work on the Earth quite fine
*[[Quantum mechanics]] describe the physics of ''very small length and energy scales''
*Satellites are macroscopic objects.
*Even a precision of 1cm on the surface of the Earth isn't a very small length.

So which kind of logic tells us that quantum mechanical effects influence the synchronization of the clocks? Why are not only the scientists involved lying, but also their calculations?

For me it seems to be a logical conclusion that you, Aschlafly, are even more knowledgeable of Greek than of Science! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:He's trying to apply the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle to satellites? Are you kidding me? That principle is used for things at the ATOMIC LEVEL! Using ANYTHING with regards to quantum mechanics in an argument about satellites is absurdism and/or ignorance of the subject matter! Seriously Andy, I know you hate the Theory of Relativity, but you should really leave science to those who understand it. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 16:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::For someone who thinks that Brownian motion is about motion at the sub-atomic level your suggestions of scientific superiority ring hollow.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 10:15, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

== Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession ==

I removed the phrase "[precession can be understood by] factoring in the gravitational pull due to other planets". The first sentence of that paragraph says the opposite, that the extra precession cannot be understood "even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets". Unless I'm reading it wrong, it sounded like a contradiction. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 16:51, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:Where is the contradiction? If the exponent in Newtonian gravity is slightly adjusted, then it predicts the Mercury precession.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:01, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I'm curious as to the justification for changing a formula in Newtonian gravity. Do you change it for every situation, or just for this one special case? Can you give us the adjusted formula, and specify the exact change? For such a change in physics which has been in use for over 250 years I would like to see a reference, preferably several good references. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:25, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
:::The old Newcomb-Hall hypothesis. [http://books.google.at/books?id=oKGlHjDzGjQC&lpg=PA379&dq=newcomb%20hall%20precession&pg=PA379#v=onepage&q=newcomb%20hall%20precession&f=false This book] says that it contradicts the observations of the orbit of the moon, which rules out a change of exponent of of the required magnitude. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 18:30, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::The contributors to this section might be pleased to see that the issue has been discussed, at great length, right here at Conservapedia. An entire debate page was created for it: [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity%3F]] This was a discussion that spilled over from [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].

::Furthermore, the subject was discussed on the relativity page itself, in the section [[Theory_of_relativity#Experimental_Verification_of_Relativity]]. There is a large chart showing the precessions of the planets under the Newcomb-Hall theory and under general relativity. They are the last two columns of the chart. The actual observations match the last column very well (see [http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm], taking into account that it's very hard to get accurate reading on the outer planets, since their precession is so small.

::One can see that the last two columns of the chart match only for Mercury. That is, Newcomb and Hall "tweaked" the exponent to the value of 2.000000157 in order to get Mercury's precession correct.

::Under the Newcomb-Hall theory, the precession of any orbiting body would be .000000078 revolutions per orbit. This works for Mercury, but is too high for the other planets, and way too high for the Moon. This is why the theory was discarded. With modern artificial satellites, such as the International Space Station, an orbit takes only an hour and a half, and the precession would be enormous. The clearly wrong value for the Moon is why the Newcomb-Hall theory was quickly discarded.

::Under general relativity, we know that the precession per orbit is proportional to the square of the planet's orbital velocity. Mercury has the highest velocity, so it has readily measurable precession. Artificial satellites are much slower, and the Moon is slower still.

::I personally don't see accepting the possible truth of such a thoroughly discredited theory as evidence of open-mindedness, but open-mindedness is admittedly a very tricky issue. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:11, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

::::"Mathematical physicists" (an [[oxymoron]] - I'll add it to the list) insisted that it was impossible for the exponent in Newtonian gravity to be anything other than '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). With the political push to promote the [[Theory of Relativity]], the influence of the mathematical physicists rose too, and that is what shut down the valid inquiry into whether the Newtonian exponent should be '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). But any logical inquiry must admit the possibility, or even the likelihood, that it would not be exactly 2 (or -2).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:31, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

The issue here is not whether the exponent is precisely two or not but that you have to have a model which explains all (or at least as many as possible) observations. To get the precision of Mercury right you produce a model which then fails to explain the observed precession of every other body in the solar system. This seems to be a good experimental demonstration that Newcomb-Hall is wrong (or least inadequate as a model). [[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:32, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] got us on the subject of the Newtonian exponent. My comment makes no mention of it. I'll answer his original question "where's the contradiction?": I quoted two sentences, both containing the phrase "other planets". One sentence said the precession '''can''' be understood by including the effects of the other planets, whereas the other said the precession '''cannot''' be understood that way. It is just rhetoric. The contradiction has little to do with physics. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 12:06, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

OK, how do you explain that adjusting the exponent in Newtonian gravity doesn't account for the orbits of the other planets? You say it has to do with politics. It has nothing to do with politics--the other theory just doesn't work! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:33, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

:I doubt the minor tweak in the exponent would affect the other orbits. The orbit of Mercury would be far more sensitive to such a tweak than anything else.

:The broader question remains: isn't the [[censorship]] of any alternative to the [[Theory of Relativity]] obvious? If the theory were correct, then there would be no need for [[liberals]] to censor debate or alternative theories.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

::*''I doubt the minor tweak in the exponent would affect the other orbits.'' Do you have any calculations which would affirm this belief of yours? AFAIK, Simon Newcomb's and Asaph Hall's idea was discarded when excellent measurements for the Moon were made by Ernest W. Brown which didn't fit the predictions of Newcomb and Hall. This was in the early 20th century...
::*Today Computer simulations allow for an easy test of alternatives to Newton's exponent. Any student should be able to create one and see for himself that it doesn't work out.
::*The influence of the exponent on ''apsidal angles'' was discussed be Newton himself. It's still of interest today: a central system in which the exponent is 1 is easily imaginable (swing a weight on a spring around your head). And you will find publications on these subjects still today.
::That said:
::*Why don't you run a simulation for yourself?
::*''Alternative theories'' are discussed - and mostly discarded. That's the way physics works. Theories doesn't become true because you ''believe'' in them, they become more and more trustworthy when their predictions are verified over and over again.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:40, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

:::The Newcomb-Hall theory doesn't need anyone, liberal or otherwise, to censor it. It censors itself, by being wrong. It has been shown to be wrong many times, including Ernest Brown's observations, and some data published right here at [[Theory of relativity#Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity|Conservapedia]].

:::Probably the best refutation at present is with artificial satellites, since their orbital period is so short. If you want to argue for the Newcomb-Hall theory, your best bet would be to find data showing that the periapsis of the International Space Station precesses by .013 degrees per month. That is an enormous precession, easily observed. The orbital eccentricity is only .001, but, since the ISS is so close and is in constant contact by radio and radar, there should be extremely good data. You should probably contact the author of the [http://www.heavens-above.com/ Heavens Above] web site. It has a huge amount of information on things like this.

:::I think that you will find is that what you are up against is not liberals, but facts. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 12:44, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence of article contradicted by the rest ==

Given that main body of the article now largely deals with the things GR can explain (including the precession of Mercury) should not the first sentance be changed?[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:37, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:GR is '''disproven''''' now by the precession of Mercury. See [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

I checked [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] and the number for the observed precession in the note are unreferenced. To be credible there has to be a reference for this number.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 12:11, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-04-22T17:48:09Z

JudyJ: Modern calculation of Mercury perihelion. Why they calculated relative to the equinoxes back in 1859 is beyond me. Stars are easy to see.

This is intended as an article rebutting the points in the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article. That article's talk page has proven to be less than satisfactory for this purpose, because it gets archived, and much of its material has degenerated into personal disputes. We believe that the two sides of the issue are better handled in two articles—this one and [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], rather than a talk page.

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

#''Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found. Sound like global warming?''
#:True, the ''direct'' searches for gravitational waves have not yet yielded any clear results, though indirect observations have been made (the Hulse/Taylor observations.) Before people dismiss indirect observations, recall that no one has ever seen an electron.
#:The Earth-based LIGO detectors have, so far, not detected any unambiguous gravitational wave signatures from such events as a black-hole merger. It is barely sensitive enough to find such things in the Milky Way or very nearby galaxies. It is being upgraded in a plan that should complete in 2014. It is hoped that, after the upgrade, it will be able to see these events clearly and unambiguously.
#:The space-based LISA detectors have not been built yet, and the original proposal has been scrapped because of budgetary problems. A new version, called "eLISA" has been proposed, and should be sensitive to events as far away as redshift 15.
#:Whether these experiments are a good use of money is another question, one that has no bearing on whether relativity is correct.
#::The objection has been raised that the experiments should not have been funded if scientists were going to ignore negative results.
#:::The results are only partly negative. The scientists knew all along that a certain amount of luck would be involved in finding a sufficiently strong signal within the time frame of the experiment. The failure so far does not mean that black-hole mergers do not emit gravitational waves; just that they haven't been lucky enough to find them. They will continue to search.
#:This has nothing to do with global warming.
#''The orbital radius of the Moon's orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts''.
#:This could be a counterexample to both GR and Newtonian gravity--in both, the radius is defined in terms of conserved quantities.
#::The objection has been raised that this would still be a counterexample to Relativity.
#:::Yes, if it were actually true that the Moon's orbit is undergoing some kind of anomalous perturbation, it would indeed be a disproof of Relativity, Newtonian mechanics, and, in fact, all of physics since Galileo.
#''The Pioneer anomaly.''
#:The "Pioneer anomaly" is the deviation in the motion of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft from their predicted motion, at the distance of Saturn and beyond. It should be noted that the anomaly is about 1000 times greater than the difference between the classical Newtonian prediction and the prediction of relativity, so this is not a problem with relativity ''per se''; it is more general than that.
#:Calculating the force caused by heat (that is, miniscule amounts of infrared radiation) from the radioactive power source was one of the first effects that was examined. The anomaly arose when this and other known effects could not fully explain the deviation.
#:The problem is believed to have been solved by taking into account the reflection of the radiation from the power source off of the back of the antenna dish<ref>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/</ref>. The solution is sometimes described as an application of "Phong shading", a technique of computer graphics that is now considered imprecise. But Phong shading itself is not what is important. The "ray tracing" computer graphics technique that underlies Phong shading was what inspired the scientists to take reflection into account.
#''Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity. The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement''.
#:This is an interesting observation. The world's best scientific minds are looking into it. That relativity is incorrect is not being taken seriously as a possible explanation.
#:'''Update:''' The problem seems to have been caused by a faulty cable connection between a computer and a GPS unit. When the connection was repaired, the travel time increased by 60 nanoseconds, which had been the amount of the anomaly <ref>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/22/technology-faster-than-light-neutrinos.html</ref> <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/22/loose-wire-led-to-stunning-faster-than-light-particle-finding/?intcmp=features</ref>.
#:The objection has been raised that a recent news report from the BBC ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is also contradictory, since neutrinos have mass and are therefore forbidden by relativity to travel at exactly the speed of light. Since the neutrino energies were 17GeV, and the current estimate for the neutrino mass is about 0.25eV, the deviation from the speed of light would be about 1 part in 1022. This means that the neutrinos would arrive at the detector about .26x10-24 seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is one quarter of a billionth of a femtosecond, or about .26x10-15 of a nanosecond. The accuracy of the GPS units and cesium clocks used in the measurement is greater than a nanosecond, so the discrepancy cannot possibly be detected. It is unfortunate that the claim "the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos" was taken so literally.
#''Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").''
#:This may be another case of the Pioneer anomaly, or it may be something else. However, it is very unlikely that it shows that relativity is wrong and Newtonian mechanics is correct.
#''Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "dark matter" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it due to the acceleration of various parts of galaxies that accelerated funny that led to dark matter (based on simple Newtonian dynamics)?
#''The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "dark energy" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:This is the dark energy/cosmological constant argument. The cosmological constant was added by Einstein after he discovered that his field equations (<math>\mathbf{G}=8\pi \mathbf{T}</math>) predicted that the universe was expanding, contradicting his firm philosophical belief in a static universe. So he inserted <math>\Lambda \mathbf{g}</math> to the LHS so that it would predict a static universe. A few years later, Hubble showed the universe to be expanding, and Einstein called the cosmological constant the worst mistake of his career. So, it sort of had a bad reputation, and people didn't want to seriously consider it, until recent observations have shown the universe's expansion to be accelerating forced them to do so. It could have had a very different history. Einstein could have had that term in the EFE's from the start, and pointed out that it would determine if the universe's expansion was accelerating (or not expanding at all!) and it would take further observation to determine its value.
#''Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.''
#:A footnote goes on to say that "In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01) ..."
#:Considering only the ''anomalous'' precession, that is, the precession that remains after all known other factors (other planets and asteroids, solar oblateness) have been accounted for, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values are:
#::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
#::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
#::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
#::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
#::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
#:These error bars, and that of the relativity formula, all overlap.
#:The formula for mechanics under general relativity is complicated, but it is not contrived or conformed. "Conformed" suggests that it was somehow adjusted or "tweaked" to match the 42.98 figure. The formula is
#:::<math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>
#:To begin to explain the formula, Newton's law of gravity, combining F = ma and <math>F = \frac{KMm}{r^2}\,</math>, is
#::<math>a = \frac{KM}{r^2}\,</math>
#:In Einstein's equation, <math>T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "stress-energy tensor", and <math>8 \pi T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> gives the density of the Sun, taking the place of <math>\frac{M}{r^2}\,</math>. <math>G_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "Einstein curvature tensor", and says how spacetime curves to create an apparent gravitational acceleration.
#:There is nothing to tweak to get a value of 42.98 arcseconds. 8 is 8. <math>\pi\,</math> is <math>\pi\,</math>. K is Newton's constant of gravitation in both formulas.
#:
#::::The above discussion notwithstanding, more sophisticated technology has measured a precession of 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01, which disproves the prediction of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Notice how publication of data stopped two decades ago when the observations diverged from the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
#:Measurements of planetary motion are now calculated relative to the "International Celestial Reference Frame" (ICFR), replacing the older, and much less accurate "equinoctial" frame. The older measurements got a value of about 5600 arcseconds/century for the precession of Mercury, nearly all of which (5025 arcseconds) was because of the rotation of the "equinoctial" frame. The ICFR frame removes that source of uncertainty, and, with the very accurate radar measurements conducted by NASA between 1987 and 1997<ref>[http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf]</ref>, gets a value of 574.10±0.65 arcseconds observed, in good agreement with the predicted 574.64±0.69 value.
#:
#:The ICFR is described in [http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Publications/TechnicalNotes/tn32.html this] document, dated 2003.
#''The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.''
#:The formulas for velocity, momentum, and mass can in fact be written in such a way that they appear to have discontinuities, just as the tangent function has discontinuities while the underlying sine and cosine functions do not. But they can also be written in a form that does not show discontinuities.
#:All particles, with or without mass, can have any value of momentum. The formula for the velocity of a particle, in terms of its mass and momentum, is
#:::<math>v = \frac{pc}{\sqrt{m^2c^2+p^2}}</math>
#:For a particle with mass, this means that momentum of zero gives a speed of zero, and, as the momentum approaches infinity, the speed approaches c.
#:For a massless particle, the speed is always c.
#''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''
#:The simple answer is, unequivocally, that it acts on the 'relativistic' mass. The question seems to relate to a simple misunderstanding of Special Relativity. Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance in the body's mass with regard to the direction of the force. Thus to a given observer, a force in any direction will operate on the same mass. However, to a different observer, this mass may be different, although still the constant with regard to the direction of the force.
#''The observed lack of curvature in overall space.''
#:What? Is has been observed
#''The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.''
#:We're still working on a quantum theory of gravity; this isn't so much a counter-example as saying that (classical)GR isn't valid in that domain.
#''The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.''
#:Special Relativity only forbids the transmission of matter, energy or information at a speed faster than light. There are plenty of other things that can move faster than light. Consider a laser on Earth which is rotating on a pivot, whose light shines onto the hull of a satellite 200,000Km away (2e8 metres). If the laser rotates at a sedentary one revolution ever four seconds, the speed of the laser beam's tip crossing the satellite's hull is 3.14e8 metres per second - faster than the speed of light. However, this is not a transfer of information. Any information is travelling from Earth to the satellite, obeying the universal speed limit. Similarly, the only information that can be transmitted by the quantum entanglement of two particles is from the originator of the particles to the two observers, not from one observer to another. Faster than light transmission of information using quantum entanglement has never been observed, nor has even conceived how such a mechanism might work.<ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612</ref>
#''The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.''
#:As an argument against relativity, there are two reasons that this is invalid (beyond simply questioning the evidential validity of the Bible):
#::a) These passages clearly refer to a [[miracle]]. A miracle, being an act of God, is not subject to the laws of physics.
#::b) It is highly debatable as to whether the verses do describe [[action-at-a-distance]] in the sense of an action whose influence travels instantaneously (and therefore faster than the speed of light). This itself may be argued from two viewpoints:
#:::i) When reading these passages, as with consideration of many apparent relativistic anomalies, the true picture of causality must be considered. In each case there are two apparent events. Event A - Jesus does something (says 'thy son liveth', says 'be it unto thee even as thou wilt', or Christ's spirit leaving His body). Event B - the apparent result (the son lives, her daughter is made whole, or the earth quakes). However, it is not the case in any of these examples that A causes B. Both A and B are caused by a third event. In the first two cases it is Christ's thought that causes the miracle and that causes His lips to announce the miracle. This thought would have occurred fractions of a second before either event, and is the non-instantaneous cause of both. In the last case it is Christ's death that is the precursor and cause of both events.
#:::ii) It must be considered that at the time when the Gospels were written, neither their authors nor their intended readers were aware of any concept of the speed of light and were unable to measure the billionths of a second difference between the events being considered here. Thus just as in modern parlance the phrase 'at the same moment' has a tolerance of milliseconds (unless specifically couched to mean otherwise) so do the various terms used by the Evangelists. They would never have considered it an important issue, and would therefore not have worried about the degree of precision.
#::::Miracles do not violate logic, and the [[Theory of Relativity]] asserts that these [[action-at-a-distance]] miracles described in the [[Gospels]] are impossible. No plausible medium for these miracles, even if they were non-instantaneous action-at-a-distance, have been proposed.
#''The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.''
#:Gravitons are a prediction of [[Quantum Theory]], not of relativity, although the concept is an extension of the relativistic idea that forces take a finite time to be transmitted over a distance.
#:No one expects to observe gravitons. Calculations show that it is well-nigh impossible with any conceivable detector that we could build. No one is designing, funding, or building any apparatus to search for gravitons.
#:Now it happens that theoretical physicists discuss and speculate on the existence and nature of such things as gravitons as part of their theoretical work. Some of these discussions take place among scientists who receive their salaries from various government agencies that are funded by taxpayers. Whether all of the things that scientists think about, talk about, and write about constitute a good use of money is not for us to say.
#''Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do not experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity''
#:Whilst this observation is unconfirmed, if true it would still not invalidate relativity. Many things may vary with position in space, and relativity does not deny this. There is no suggestion that the fine-structure constant is different at the same point in space for observers in different non-inertial frame, as the 'counterexample' implies.
#''The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a black hole. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."''
#:When physicists encounter something puzzling, their first reaction is usually not to assume that it shows that relativity is wrong. In fact the cited article never mentions relativity at all. It is about "magnetars", a type of neutron star about which very little is known, other than their extremely strong magnetic fields.
#:Many scientific discoveries have arisen from observations that were puzzling at first. Edwin Hubble's observations of galactic redshift led to the realization that the universe is expanding isotropically. The observations by Jocelyn Bell and Antony Hewish, of periodic pulsation in the radio emissions of a star, were so puzzling at first that they seemed to suggest transmissions from intelligent extraterrestrials. They had actually discovered pulsars. When Carl Anderson saw unexplained particle tracks in a cloud chamber, he had discovered antiparticles.
#:None of these people assumed that the explanation for these observations was that relativity was wrong. They were all astrophysicists and were quite familiar with relativity. In fact, Anderson's antiparticles had been predicted by the Dirac equation, a synthesis of special relativity and the Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics, from a few years earlier.
#''The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.''
#:It is utterly baffling how anyone could make such an assertion. The insights from relativity are multitudinous. Relativity forms the basis for astronomy, cosmology, electrodynamics, and many other fields. The interconnection between the electric and magnetic forces is now seen to be a straightforward consequence of relativity. Relativity combined with quantum mechanics are the basis of all of contemporary physics.
#:The Dirac equation, which gives rise to antiparticles and the theory of spinors, was an early example of introducing relatitivity into the Schrödinger equation.
#:More generally, special relativity was combined with quantum theory to produce [[quantum field theory]] (QFT). An example of a QFT is [[quantum electrodynamics]], the most precise theory in physics. Furthermore, string theory is Lorentz invariant and produces general relativity in the low energy limit.
#''The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.''
#:We are baffled that anyone would connect this problem with relativity. The non-relativity principle of conservation of mass has been known, in general, for hundreds of years, going back to the time of the alchemists, and has been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. The principle of conservation of energy has also been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. Relativity simply generalizes this to a principle of both together, with even greater precision. So, in principle, it is recognized that the mass of the standard kilogram could change if an energy transfer took place. But no combustion, corrosion, or nuclear decay is suspected of having taken place. In any case, the amount of energy that would have to have been released is 1.25 megawatt-hours, which would certainly have been noticed.
#:Relativity does not promise uniformity of the universe any more strongly than classical physics did. The apparent change in mass of the standard kilogram is simply a mystery.
#''The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 22, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about speculation that the constant "alpha" (see item 16 above) may not be constant. It might have decreased, by 45 parts per billion, as recently (in cosmic time) as two billion years ago, based on data from the Oklo "natural fission reactor". Other measurements have been made of alpha at earlier times, such as measurement of light from distant quasars. These measurements suggest that alpha has increased by a few parts per 105 in 12 billion years.
#:There is plenty of literature on theories about change in alpha, and some of it indicates that this may be due to change in the speed of light. Specifically, the Oklo data may suggest that the speed of light may have been increasing slightly. (This is the opposite of the direction of change claimed by fundamentalists, but is much smaller in any case.)
#:Speculation on a different speed of light in the past may relate to theories of "cosmic inflation", which touches on the question of why the Cosmic Background Radiation is so nearly isotropic, which indicates a near-uniformity of temperature, which requires inflation or some equivalent mechanism.
#:None of the scientists working in this area seem to doubt the fundamental correctness of relativity.
#''"According to Einstein's view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 22, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about a very recent and exciting development in fundamental theoretical physics, generally called the "holographic principle". This proposes that our perceived 3-dimensional space actually arises from a "hologram" on a 2-dimensional space. Much has been written about this recently, including the best-selling book ''The Hidden Reality'' by Brian Greene. This hologram manifests itself in the "foamlike" ripples of spacetime, at the scale of the Planck length, which is so small that there seemed to be no way to detect it directly.
#:But it seems that some "inexplicable static" in the results of another unrelated experiment, searching for gravitational waves, may be the first hints of the holographic nature of space. If so, this is a lucky and serendipitous result.
#:Serendipitous scientific discoveries have been made many times, as when Henri Becquerel put a photographic plate in a dark drawer because the weather was cloudy, and thereby discovered radioactivity.
#:That the "foamlike" nature of space at short distances is contrary to the continuous nature presumed by classical mechanics and relativity has been known for some time. This is the problem that quantum gravity seeks to solve.
#''"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don't gel."''
#:Quoting things without explaining the context is often a bad idea, and the indicated item is a good example of this. It gives no hint of what the article from which the quote was taken is about. The article is about one scientist's contribution to the problem of unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. The scientist, Petr HoYava of Berkeley, has come up with an approach that he says eliminates the infinities that have plagued other unification attempts.
#:The two quoted sentences are HoYava's ''statement of the problem''. So it comes as no surprise that he says that there is a conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics. The very next paragraph begins:
#::The solution, HoYava says, is to snip threads that bind time to space at very high energies .... At low energies, general relativity emerges from this underlying framework ..."
#:It is well known that, just as classical mechanics emerges from quantum mechanics at non-microscopic scales, and classical mechanics emerges from relativity at low speeds, both relativity and quantum mechanics should emerge from the Grand Unified Theory (whatever that turns out to be) at the appropriate scales.
#''The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.''
#:The topology of wormholes is an interesting topic, widely discussed among theoretical physicists and mathematicians. There is much speculation about what they would be like (if they could exist at all under quantum gravity), and what kind of "cosmic censorship" or "chronology protection" theorems might make practical time travel impossible. The nature of these theorems seems to be intertwined with theories of quantum gravity and "grand unification", so the exact form of the "cosmic censorship", if it exists, can't be known until quantum mechanics and relativistic geometry are unified. It is an exciting field of research. No one believes that the "cosmic censorship" will take the form of relativity not being a true non-quantum approximation to reality.
#''The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.''
#:Since the 70's much work has been done on the subject of black hole thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973CMaPh..31..161B</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9307035v1.pdf</ref>, most notably by the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge [[Stephen Hawking]]. When quantum field theory is added to the analysis of black holes it is found that they do not possess "low entropy" (quite the opposite, in fact) and are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...7.2333B</ref>. The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article has labelled this work in a footnote as "[c]ontrived explanations", with no explanation for this characterization given.
#''Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.''
#:Please read the cited paper carefully. It is a survey of their observations over a 30 year period. They point out that their data matches general relativity to within 0.2 percent, and is now down in the "noise" of other effects, such as lack of accurate knowledge of just how far away the pulsars are, and lack of accurate knowledge of galactic constants. As they say in the abstract, "tighter bounds will be difficult to obtain." The paper, written in 2004, also notes that, because the pulsar beams are slowly tilting out of the line of sight to Earth, "A core component [of the emission] is quite prominent in the data taken in 1980-81, but it faded very significantly between 1980 and 1998 and was nearly gone by 2003."
#:That is why they are not releasing further data. 30 years is a fairly long time to watch a pair of pulsars. They're not doing the experiment any more—it did its job, and it's finished. No one drops cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa any more either.
#:The data are not diverging from the predictions.
#''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.''
#:The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses general relativity to achieve greater accuracy<ref>http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html</ref>.
#:In fact, relativity is what makes the magnetic force necessary. The magnetic force is used in, among other things, electric motors and generators.
#:Even if it were the case that no practical applications have come from relativity, that is irrelevant. The validity of a theory is not based on the creation of useful devices. It is based on its ability to accurately predict the results of an experiment. Relativity "has held up under extensive experimental scrutiny" <ref>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/</ref>.
#:If scientific theories were judged by their application in useful devices, the following Nobel-worthy theories would be rejected:
#::cosmic inflation
#::parity violation in the weak force
#::antiparticles
#::the Chandrasekhar limit for white dwarf stars
#''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.''
#:The rules for calculating inertia and other questions of mechanics are well known. The inertia, that is, the way that a force affects an object's momentum, is well known. Hundreds of physics textbooks discuss this in great detail, in terms of the Lorentz transform and the concepts of the force and momentum 4-vectors. The "inertia" comes from what is now called the mass, which used to be called the "rest mass". Archaic treatments formulated this in terms of the "relativistic mass", which was different. The mass is a scalar, and has no direction. The formulas for calculating the motion in terms of forces, in the direction of motion or transverse to it, are well known.
#''Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.''
#:This seems to be another basic misunderstanding of relativity, from someone who gave up halfway through the textbook. Newtonian momentum (p = mv) does certainly indicate that a body with zero mass (''m'') must have zero momentum whatever its velocity (''v''). However, the relativistic equation for momentum is:
#::<math> p = \gamma m_0v\,</math>
#:where ''m''0 is the [[invariant mass|rest mass]] of the object and ''?'' is the Lorentz factor, given by
#::<math>\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2}}\,,</math>
#:where ''c'' is the [[speed of light]].
#:For the case of a photon, where rest mass is zero and ''v'' is equal to ''c'', this gives ''p'' as zero divided by zero - an undetermined value.
#:However, with the substitution of the famous E=mc2, where E is the energy of the body, the momentum equation can be rearranged to:
#::<math>pc = \sqrt{E^2 - m_0^2c^4}</math>
#:With a photon of zero rest mass, this gives:
#::<math>p = E/c\,</math>
#:Finally, substituting Planck's Equation for the energy of a photon <math>E = hf\,</math> where ''h'' is [[Planck's Constant]] and ''f'' is the frequency of the photon, we get the familiar (and experimentally demonstrated) value for a photon's momentum of:
#::<math>p = hf/c = h/\lambda\,</math>
#:where <math>\lambda</math> is the photon's wavelength.<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html</ref>
#''Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.''
#:There are no "conditions of a conservative field". A conservative field is one that has a curl of zero. Perhaps what was meant was that the gravitational field around the Sun, under Newtonian mechanics, is conservative. This is true because it is the gradient of an inverse-square scalar field, and all gradients have a curl of zero. Under relativity, the curl is also zero, due to the Bianchi identity and the symmetries of Riemann's tensor. See the extensive discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ACounterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=801452&oldid=799266 here].
#:The reference to the twin paradox suggests that the author thought that the passage of time is some kind of scalar field that should be obtainable as the path integral of a conservative vector field. It is not. Passage of time is a property of one's path through spacetime, and is similar to path length. (In fact, under the Lorentz/Minkowski metric, it is exactly path length.) Just as two paths from point A to point B on a sheet of paper can have different lengths, the paths of the twins can have different lengths, and hence different elapsed local times.
#''The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?''
#:The "Ehrenfest paradox" is not an actual paradox. Non-inertial relativistic motion of solid bodies is quite complicated, involving such concepts as "Born rigidity", "Langevin observers", the "Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric", and "quotient manifolds". In general, the subject is complicated, and has provided physicists with much food for thought. But it does not disprove relativity.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.''
#:The claims of that item are preposterous. Read the cited paper (or its abstract) carefully. Einstein's statement that clocks would run slower at the equator, due to time dilation, was correct according to special relativity alone. What Einstein didn't realize, because he wouldn't discover general relativity for another 10 years, was that the gravitational time shift would offset that.
#:A "geoid" (the shape dicussed in the paper) is a theoretical shape used in mathematical physics, that is in equilibrium between the effects of centrifugal force (from rotation) and gravity. It is essentially an oblate spheroid. It can be thought of as the shape a rotating planet would take if it were completely fluid. Or it could be thought of as the shape of "global sea level". Jupiter, because of its rapid rotation, has a very pronounced flattening at the poles. Since Jupiter is not solid, its shape is a geoid. The Earth is ''very nearly'' a geoid, of course. But not exactly, because of gravitational nonuniformities, and things like mountains, that can exist because of the Earth's rigidity. No one "made new assumptions about the Earth's shape" to justify anything. The assumption that the Earth's shape is a geoid is a theoretical assumption due to the ''approximately'' fluid nature of the Earth. But no one claims that the Earth's shape is anything other than what it is observed and measured to be.
#:What the paper is about is the fact that the effects of rotational speed and gravitational time dilation happen to cancel each other on an ideal geoid. So all clocks at "sea level" on an ideal geoid-shaped planet run at the same speed. Whether this result is implausible is not for us to say.
#:The cited paper does not refute relativity.
#''The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.''
#:The physics and mathematics underlying the "twin paradox" are well known. That one of the twins will have had to undergo different accelerations from the other before returning to the same point is what enables them to perceive different passage of time. This does not contradict relativity, and Einstein never said that it does. His explanation in terms of different acceleration is correct.
#:The comment about extending the length of the trip so that the acceleration would be ''de minimis'' is wrong. It seems to suggest that the acceleration could be reduced until it is negligible. It can be reduced by lengthening the trip, but it is not negligible. The Lorentz transform, and the equations of motion, are mathematically exact. The integral of a very small function over a long period is still significant. If the twins followed different paths in spacetime, which they must in order to measure different elapsed proper time, they must have undergone different accelerations, however small those differences may have been.
#:Of course, if they never come back to the same point, they could both undergo zero acceleration.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.''
#:Quantum field theory abounds with fields. The Higgs particle has a Higgs field. It has nothing to do with the "luminiferous aether".
#''Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.''
#:Time isn't a vector. It is a component of the vector space known as "spacetime". Vectors have negatives; the word "inverse" is not typically used here. While there are thermodynamic and other reasons for not allowing time to go backwards in the real world, the mathematics of spacetime allow vectors with any components, even negative ones.
#''In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.''
#:That a Bible verse "likely" refers to a scientific phenomenon does not make good science. The objection appears to be claiming that the Bible contradicts the Michelson-Morley experiment, so the latter must be wrong. The Michelson-Morley experiment is very well known, has been repeated countless times, and is incontrovertible. To suggest that the Bible verse in Genesis contradicts such an incontrovertible phenomenon does a disservice to both the Bible and to science.
#''It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].''
#:Modern formulations of the Lorentz aether theory may very well make it completely equivalent to relativity, both special and general. But that doesn't make relativity wrong; it just means that another theory is just as correct. The universal preference of the scientific community for relativity over the Lorentz theory is probably not based on religious faith, but on simplicity, as expressed in [[Occam's razor]]. The Lorentz theory postulates an aether that no experiment can possibly determine the properties of, while relativity postulates no aether.
#''Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."''
#:They are not "beyond understanding". They are simply beyond closed-form solution. Cosmologists work with approximate solutions, calculated by extensive computer calculations, all the time. A well-known example of this is the simulation of galaxy dynamics. Particle physicists do this also, in, for example, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) calculations. It is fortunate that the equations of Keplerian/Newtonian planetary motion were solvable by the mathematical methods of the 17th century—a closed-form solution to a second-order differential equation. Modern physics problems are much harder. But, with modern computers, we can solve the equations of gravity to enormous precision.
#''Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein's Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."''
#:The first cited reference, from which the quote was taken, is a totally crackpot web page, from a web site that seems to specialize in hosting crackpot papers. The writing is utterly illiterate and incoherent, as in this sentence: "According to Faraday's Law it can be explained as that, duo to the magnetic flux in conductor line changing, firstly induced electromotive force dU coming from the line-winded conductor to bring out voltage, then based on differential form <math>I = \frac{-\sigma s dU}{dl}</math> of Ohm's Law, the physical natural would be regarded as 'voltage before electric current' "
#''Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.''
#:The equations of electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations), and their connection with relativity, are well known. Hundreds of electrodynamics textbooks cover this subject. The equations are correct at all realizable speeds, even relativistic (''near'' the speed of light) speeds. (Maxwell's equations are said to be the only equations from classical physics that did not need to be modified for relativity.) The equations correctly describe the behavior of magnets (this is presumably what was meant by "solenoids"), charges, and electric and magnetic fields, even at speeds near the speed of light. Of course the equations don't work ''at'' the speed of light. The cited article never discussed speeds ''near'' the speed of light, only ''at'' the speed of light. The questioner was rightly taken to task for his physically unrealizable assumption.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:science]]

Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-04-22T16:55:13Z

JudyJ: Move objection from the other page to this page.

Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-04-22T16:46:01Z

JudyJ: Put in note about keeping the section numbering intact.

Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-04-22T16:44:57Z

JudyJ: Repair numbering, and put in editors' note about how to keep it that way. (This has happened before.)

This is intended as an article rebutting the points in the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article. That article's talk page has proven to be less than satisfactory for this purpose, because it gets archived, and much of its material has degenerated into personal disputes. We believe that the two sides of the issue are better handled in two articles—this one and [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], rather than a talk page.

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

#''Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found. Sound like global warming?''
#:True, the ''direct'' searches for gravitational waves have not yet yielded any clear results, though indirect observations have been made (the Hulse/Taylor observations.) Before people dismiss indirect observations, recall that no one has ever seen an electron.
#:The Earth-based LIGO detectors have, so far, not detected any unambiguous gravitational wave signatures from such events as a black-hole merger. It is barely sensitive enough to find such things in the Milky Way or very nearby galaxies. It is being upgraded in a plan that should complete in 2014. It is hoped that, after the upgrade, it will be able to see these events clearly and unambiguously.
#:The space-based LISA detectors have not been built yet, and the original proposal has been scrapped because of budgetary problems. A new version, called "eLISA" has been proposed, and should be sensitive to events as far away as redshift 15.
#:Whether these experiments are a good use of money is another question, one that has no bearing on whether relativity is correct.
#::The objection has been raised that the experiments should not have been funded if scientists were going to ignore negative results.
#:::The results are only partly negative. The scientists knew all along that a certain amount of luck would be involved in finding a sufficiently strong signal within the time frame of the experiment. The failure so far does not mean that black-hole mergers do not emit gravitational waves; just that they haven't been lucky enough to find them. They will continue to search.
#:This has nothing to do with global warming.
#''The orbital radius of the Moon's orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts''.
#:This could be a counterexample to both GR and Newtonian gravity--in both, the radius is defined in terms of conserved quantities.
#::The objection has been raised that this would still be a counterexample to Relativity.
#:::Yes, if it were actually true that the Moon's orbit is undergoing some kind of anomalous perturbation, it would indeed be a disproof of Relativity, Newtonian mechanics, and, in fact, all of physics since Galileo.
#''The Pioneer anomaly.''
#:The "Pioneer anomaly" is the deviation in the motion of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft from their predicted motion, at the distance of Saturn and beyond. It should be noted that the anomaly is about 1000 times greater than the difference between the classical Newtonian prediction and the prediction of relativity, so this is not a problem with relativity ''per se''; it is more general than that.
#:Calculating the force caused by heat (that is, miniscule amounts of infrared radiation) from the radioactive power source was one of the first effects that was examined. The anomaly arose when this and other known effects could not fully explain the deviation.
#:The problem is believed to have been solved by taking into account the reflection of the radiation from the power source off of the back of the antenna dish<ref>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/</ref>. The solution is sometimes described as an application of "Phong shading", a technique of computer graphics that is now considered imprecise. But Phong shading itself is not what is important. The "ray tracing" computer graphics technique that underlies Phong shading was what inspired the scientists to take reflection into account.
#''Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity. The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement''.
#:This is an interesting observation. The world's best scientific minds are looking into it. That relativity is incorrect is not being taken seriously as a possible explanation.
#:'''Update:''' The problem seems to have been caused by a faulty cable connection between a computer and a GPS unit. When the connection was repaired, the travel time increased by 60 nanoseconds, which had been the amount of the anomaly <ref>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/22/technology-faster-than-light-neutrinos.html</ref> <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/22/loose-wire-led-to-stunning-faster-than-light-particle-finding/?intcmp=features</ref>.
#:The objection has been raised that a recent news report from the BBC ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is also contradictory, since neutrinos have mass and are therefore forbidden by relativity to travel at exactly the speed of light. Since the neutrino energies were 17GeV, and the current estimate for the neutrino mass is about 0.25eV, the deviation from the speed of light would be about 1 part in 1022. This means that the neutrinos would arrive at the detector about .26x10-24 seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is one quarter of a billionth of a femtosecond, or about .26x10-15 of a nanosecond. The accuracy of the GPS units and cesium clocks used in the measurement is greater than a nanosecond, so the discrepancy cannot possibly be detected. It is unfortunate that the claim "the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos" was taken so literally.
#''Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").''
#:This may be another case of the Pioneer anomaly, or it may be something else. However, it is very unlikely that it shows that relativity is wrong and Newtonian mechanics is correct.
#''Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "dark matter" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it due to the acceleration of various parts of galaxies that accelerated funny that led to dark matter (based on simple Newtonian dynamics)?
#''The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "dark energy" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:This is the dark energy/cosmological constant argument. The cosmological constant was added by Einstein after he discovered that his field equations (<math>\mathbf{G}=8\pi \mathbf{T}</math>) predicted that the universe was expanding, contradicting his firm philosophical belief in a static universe. So he inserted <math>\Lambda \mathbf{g}</math> to the LHS so that it would predict a static universe. A few years later, Hubble showed the universe to be expanding, and Einstein called the cosmological constant the worst mistake of his career. So, it sort of had a bad reputation, and people didn't want to seriously consider it, until recent observations have shown the universe's expansion to be accelerating forced them to do so. It could have had a very different history. Einstein could have had that term in the EFE's from the start, and pointed out that it would determine if the universe's expansion was accelerating (or not expanding at all!) and it would take further observation to determine its value.
#''Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.''
#:A footnote goes on to say that "In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01) ..."
#:Considering only the ''anomalous'' precession, that is, the precession that remains after all known other factors (other planets and asteroids, solar oblateness) have been accounted for, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values are:
#::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
#::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
#::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
#::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
#::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
#:These error bars, and that of the relativity formula, all overlap.
#:The formula for mechanics under general relativity is complicated, but it is not contrived or conformed. "Conformed" suggests that it was somehow adjusted or "tweaked" to match the 42.98 figure. The formula is
#:::<math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>
#:To begin to explain the formula, Newton's law of gravity, combining F = ma and <math>F = \frac{KMm}{r^2}\,</math>, is
#::<math>a = \frac{KM}{r^2}\,</math>
#:In Einstein's equation, <math>T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "stress-energy tensor", and <math>8 \pi T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> gives the density of the Sun, taking the place of <math>\frac{M}{r^2}\,</math>. <math>G_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "Einstein curvature tensor", and says how spacetime curves to create an apparent gravitational acceleration.
#:There is nothing to tweak to get a value of 42.98 arcseconds. 8 is 8. <math>\pi\,</math> is <math>\pi\,</math>. K is Newton's constant of gravitation in both formulas.
#:
#::::The above discussion notwithstanding, more sophisticated technology has measured a precession of 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01, which disproves the prediction of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Notice how publication of data stopped two decades ago when the observations diverged from the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
#''The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.''
#:The formulas for velocity, momentum, and mass can in fact be written in such a way that they appear to have discontinuities, just as the tangent function has discontinuities while the underlying sine and cosine functions do not. But they can also be written in a form that does not show discontinuities.
#:All particles, with or without mass, can have any value of momentum. The formula for the velocity of a particle, in terms of its mass and momentum, is
#:::<math>v = \frac{pc}{\sqrt{m^2c^2+p^2}}</math>
#:For a particle with mass, this means that momentum of zero gives a speed of zero, and, as the momentum approaches infinity, the speed approaches c.
#:For a massless particle, the speed is always c.
#''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''
#:The simple answer is, unequivocally, that it acts on the 'relativistic' mass. The question seems to relate to a simple misunderstanding of Special Relativity. Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance in the body's mass with regard to the direction of the force. Thus to a given observer, a force in any direction will operate on the same mass. However, to a different observer, this mass may be different, although still the constant with regard to the direction of the force.
#''The observed lack of curvature in overall space.''
#:What? Is has been observed
#''The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.''
#:We're still working on a quantum theory of gravity; this isn't so much a counter-example as saying that (classical)GR isn't valid in that domain.
#''The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.''
#:Special Relativity only forbids the transmission of matter, energy or information at a speed faster than light. There are plenty of other things that can move faster than light. Consider a laser on Earth which is rotating on a pivot, whose light shines onto the hull of a satellite 200,000Km away (2e8 metres). If the laser rotates at a sedentary one revolution ever four seconds, the speed of the laser beam's tip crossing the satellite's hull is 3.14e8 metres per second - faster than the speed of light. However, this is not a transfer of information. Any information is travelling from Earth to the satellite, obeying the universal speed limit. Similarly, the only information that can be transmitted by the quantum entanglement of two particles is from the originator of the particles to the two observers, not from one observer to another. Faster than light transmission of information using quantum entanglement has never been observed, nor has even conceived how such a mechanism might work.<ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612</ref>
#''The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.''
#:As an argument against relativity, there are two reasons that this is invalid (beyond simply questioning the evidential validity of the Bible):
#::a) These passages clearly refer to a [[miracle]]. A miracle, being an act of God, is not subject to the laws of physics.
#::b) It is highly debatable as to whether the verses do describe [[action-at-a-distance]] in the sense of an action whose influence travels instantaneously (and therefore faster than the speed of light). This itself may be argued from two viewpoints:
#:::i) When reading these passages, as with consideration of many apparent relativistic anomalies, the true picture of causality must be considered. In each case there are two apparent events. Event A - Jesus does something (says 'thy son liveth', says 'be it unto thee even as thou wilt', or Christ's spirit leaving His body). Event B - the apparent result (the son lives, her daughter is made whole, or the earth quakes). However, it is not the case in any of these examples that A causes B. Both A and B are caused by a third event. In the first two cases it is Christ's thought that causes the miracle and that causes His lips to announce the miracle. This thought would have occurred fractions of a second before either event, and is the non-instantaneous cause of both. In the last case it is Christ's death that is the precursor and cause of both events.
#:::ii) It must be considered that at the time when the Gospels were written, neither their authors nor their intended readers were aware of any concept of the speed of light and were unable to measure the billionths of a second difference between the events being considered here. Thus just as in modern parlance the phrase 'at the same moment' has a tolerance of milliseconds (unless specifically couched to mean otherwise) so do the various terms used by the Evangelists. They would never have considered it an important issue, and would therefore not have worried about the degree of precision.
#''The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.''
#:Gravitons are a prediction of [[Quantum Theory]], not of relativity, although the concept is an extension of the relativistic idea that forces take a finite time to be transmitted over a distance.
#:No one expects to observe gravitons. Calculations show that it is well-nigh impossible with any conceivable detector that we could build. No one is designing, funding, or building any apparatus to search for gravitons.
#:Now it happens that theoretical physicists discuss and speculate on the existence and nature of such things as gravitons as part of their theoretical work. Some of these discussions take place among scientists who receive their salaries from various government agencies that are funded by taxpayers. Whether all of the things that scientists think about, talk about, and write about constitute a good use of money is not for us to say.
#''Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do not experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity''
#:Whilst this observation is unconfirmed, if true it would still not invalidate relativity. Many things may vary with position in space, and relativity does not deny this. There is no suggestion that the fine-structure constant is different at the same point in space for observers in different non-inertial frame, as the 'counterexample' implies.
#''The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a black hole. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."''
#:When physicists encounter something puzzling, their first reaction is usually not to assume that it shows that relativity is wrong. In fact the cited article never mentions relativity at all. It is about "magnetars", a type of neutron star about which very little is known, other than their extremely strong magnetic fields.
#:Many scientific discoveries have arisen from observations that were puzzling at first. Edwin Hubble's observations of galactic redshift led to the realization that the universe is expanding isotropically. The observations by Jocelyn Bell and Antony Hewish, of periodic pulsation in the radio emissions of a star, were so puzzling at first that they seemed to suggest transmissions from intelligent extraterrestrials. They had actually discovered pulsars. When Carl Anderson saw unexplained particle tracks in a cloud chamber, he had discovered antiparticles.
#:None of these people assumed that the explanation for these observations was that relativity was wrong. They were all astrophysicists and were quite familiar with relativity. In fact, Anderson's antiparticles had been predicted by the Dirac equation, a synthesis of special relativity and the Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics, from a few years earlier.
#''The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.''
#:It is utterly baffling how anyone could make such an assertion. The insights from relativity are multitudinous. Relativity forms the basis for astronomy, cosmology, electrodynamics, and many other fields. The interconnection between the electric and magnetic forces is now seen to be a straightforward consequence of relativity. Relativity combined with quantum mechanics are the basis of all of contemporary physics.
#:The Dirac equation, which gives rise to antiparticles and the theory of spinors, was an early example of introducing relatitivity into the Schrödinger equation.
#:More generally, special relativity was combined with quantum theory to produce [[quantum field theory]] (QFT). An example of a QFT is [[quantum electrodynamics]], the most precise theory in physics. Furthermore, string theory is Lorentz invariant and produces general relativity in the low energy limit.
#''The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.''
#:We are baffled that anyone would connect this problem with relativity. The non-relativity principle of conservation of mass has been known, in general, for hundreds of years, going back to the time of the alchemists, and has been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. The principle of conservation of energy has also been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. Relativity simply generalizes this to a principle of both together, with even greater precision. So, in principle, it is recognized that the mass of the standard kilogram could change if an energy transfer took place. But no combustion, corrosion, or nuclear decay is suspected of having taken place. In any case, the amount of energy that would have to have been released is 1.25 megawatt-hours, which would certainly have been noticed.
#:Relativity does not promise uniformity of the universe any more strongly than classical physics did. The apparent change in mass of the standard kilogram is simply a mystery.
#''The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 22, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about speculation that the constant "alpha" (see item 16 above) may not be constant. It might have decreased, by 45 parts per billion, as recently (in cosmic time) as two billion years ago, based on data from the Oklo "natural fission reactor". Other measurements have been made of alpha at earlier times, such as measurement of light from distant quasars. These measurements suggest that alpha has increased by a few parts per 105 in 12 billion years.
#:There is plenty of literature on theories about change in alpha, and some of it indicates that this may be due to change in the speed of light. Specifically, the Oklo data may suggest that the speed of light may have been increasing slightly. (This is the opposite of the direction of change claimed by fundamentalists, but is much smaller in any case.)
#:Speculation on a different speed of light in the past may relate to theories of "cosmic inflation", which touches on the question of why the Cosmic Background Radiation is so nearly isotropic, which indicates a near-uniformity of temperature, which requires inflation or some equivalent mechanism.
#:None of the scientists working in this area seem to doubt the fundamental correctness of relativity.
#''"According to Einstein's view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 22, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about a very recent and exciting development in fundamental theoretical physics, generally called the "holographic principle". This proposes that our perceived 3-dimensional space actually arises from a "hologram" on a 2-dimensional space. Much has been written about this recently, including the best-selling book ''The Hidden Reality'' by Brian Greene. This hologram manifests itself in the "foamlike" ripples of spacetime, at the scale of the Planck length, which is so small that there seemed to be no way to detect it directly.
#:But it seems that some "inexplicable static" in the results of another unrelated experiment, searching for gravitational waves, may be the first hints of the holographic nature of space. If so, this is a lucky and serendipitous result.
#:Serendipitous scientific discoveries have been made many times, as when Henri Becquerel put a photographic plate in a dark drawer because the weather was cloudy, and thereby discovered radioactivity.
#:That the "foamlike" nature of space at short distances is contrary to the continuous nature presumed by classical mechanics and relativity has been known for some time. This is the problem that quantum gravity seeks to solve.
#''"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don't gel."''
#:Quoting things without explaining the context is often a bad idea, and the indicated item is a good example of this. It gives no hint of what the article from which the quote was taken is about. The article is about one scientist's contribution to the problem of unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. The scientist, Petr HoYava of Berkeley, has come up with an approach that he says eliminates the infinities that have plagued other unification attempts.
#:The two quoted sentences are HoYava's ''statement of the problem''. So it comes as no surprise that he says that there is a conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics. The very next paragraph begins:
#::The solution, HoYava says, is to snip threads that bind time to space at very high energies .... At low energies, general relativity emerges from this underlying framework ..."
#:It is well known that, just as classical mechanics emerges from quantum mechanics at non-microscopic scales, and classical mechanics emerges from relativity at low speeds, both relativity and quantum mechanics should emerge from the Grand Unified Theory (whatever that turns out to be) at the appropriate scales.
#''The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.''
#:The topology of wormholes is an interesting topic, widely discussed among theoretical physicists and mathematicians. There is much speculation about what they would be like (if they could exist at all under quantum gravity), and what kind of "cosmic censorship" or "chronology protection" theorems might make practical time travel impossible. The nature of these theorems seems to be intertwined with theories of quantum gravity and "grand unification", so the exact form of the "cosmic censorship", if it exists, can't be known until quantum mechanics and relativistic geometry are unified. It is an exciting field of research. No one believes that the "cosmic censorship" will take the form of relativity not being a true non-quantum approximation to reality.
#''The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.''
#:Since the 70's much work has been done on the subject of black hole thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973CMaPh..31..161B</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9307035v1.pdf</ref>, most notably by the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge [[Stephen Hawking]]. When quantum field theory is added to the analysis of black holes it is found that they do not possess "low entropy" (quite the opposite, in fact) and are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...7.2333B</ref>. The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article has labelled this work in a footnote as "[c]ontrived explanations", with no explanation for this characterization given.
#''Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.''
#:Please read the cited paper carefully. It is a survey of their observations over a 30 year period. They point out that their data matches general relativity to within 0.2 percent, and is now down in the "noise" of other effects, such as lack of accurate knowledge of just how far away the pulsars are, and lack of accurate knowledge of galactic constants. As they say in the abstract, "tighter bounds will be difficult to obtain." The paper, written in 2004, also notes that, because the pulsar beams are slowly tilting out of the line of sight to Earth, "A core component [of the emission] is quite prominent in the data taken in 1980-81, but it faded very significantly between 1980 and 1998 and was nearly gone by 2003."
#:That is why they are not releasing further data. 30 years is a fairly long time to watch a pair of pulsars. They're not doing the experiment any more—it did its job, and it's finished. No one drops cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa any more either.
#:The data are not diverging from the predictions.
#''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.''
#:The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses general relativity to achieve greater accuracy<ref>http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html</ref>.
#:In fact, relativity is what makes the magnetic force necessary. The magnetic force is used in, among other things, electric motors and generators.
#:Even if it were the case that no practical applications have come from relativity, that is irrelevant. The validity of a theory is not based on the creation of useful devices. It is based on its ability to accurately predict the results of an experiment. Relativity "has held up under extensive experimental scrutiny" <ref>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/</ref>.
#:If scientific theories were judged by their application in useful devices, the following Nobel-worthy theories would be rejected:
#::cosmic inflation
#::parity violation in the weak force
#::antiparticles
#::the Chandrasekhar limit for white dwarf stars
#''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.''
#:The rules for calculating inertia and other questions of mechanics are well known. The inertia, that is, the way that a force affects an object's momentum, is well known. Hundreds of physics textbooks discuss this in great detail, in terms of the Lorentz transform and the concepts of the force and momentum 4-vectors. The "inertia" comes from what is now called the mass, which used to be called the "rest mass". Archaic treatments formulated this in terms of the "relativistic mass", which was different. The mass is a scalar, and has no direction. The formulas for calculating the motion in terms of forces, in the direction of motion or transverse to it, are well known.
#''Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.''
#:This seems to be another basic misunderstanding of relativity, from someone who gave up halfway through the textbook. Newtonian momentum (p = mv) does certainly indicate that a body with zero mass (''m'') must have zero momentum whatever its velocity (''v''). However, the relativistic equation for momentum is:
#::<math> p = \gamma m_0v\,</math>
#:where ''m''0 is the [[invariant mass|rest mass]] of the object and ''?'' is the Lorentz factor, given by
#::<math>\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2}}\,,</math>
#:where ''c'' is the [[speed of light]].
#:For the case of a photon, where rest mass is zero and ''v'' is equal to ''c'', this gives ''p'' as zero divided by zero - an undetermined value.
#:However, with the substitution of the famous E=mc2, where E is the energy of the body, the momentum equation can be rearranged to:
#::<math>pc = \sqrt{E^2 - m_0^2c^4}</math>
#:With a photon of zero rest mass, this gives:
#::<math>p = E/c\,</math>
#:Finally, substituting Planck's Equation for the energy of a photon <math>E = hf\,</math> where ''h'' is [[Planck's Constant]] and ''f'' is the frequency of the photon, we get the familiar (and experimentally demonstrated) value for a photon's momentum of:
#::<math>p = hf/c = h/\lambda\,</math>
#:where <math>\lambda</math> is the photon's wavelength.<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html</ref>
#''Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.''
#:There are no "conditions of a conservative field". A conservative field is one that has a curl of zero. Perhaps what was meant was that the gravitational field around the Sun, under Newtonian mechanics, is conservative. This is true because it is the gradient of an inverse-square scalar field, and all gradients have a curl of zero. Under relativity, the curl is also zero, due to the Bianchi identity and the symmetries of Riemann's tensor. See the extensive discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ACounterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=801452&oldid=799266 here].
#:The reference to the twin paradox suggests that the author thought that the passage of time is some kind of scalar field that should be obtainable as the path integral of a conservative vector field. It is not. Passage of time is a property of one's path through spacetime, and is similar to path length. (In fact, under the Lorentz/Minkowski metric, it is exactly path length.) Just as two paths from point A to point B on a sheet of paper can have different lengths, the paths of the twins can have different lengths, and hence different elapsed local times.
#''The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?''
#:The "Ehrenfest paradox" is not an actual paradox. Non-inertial relativistic motion of solid bodies is quite complicated, involving such concepts as "Born rigidity", "Langevin observers", the "Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric", and "quotient manifolds". In general, the subject is complicated, and has provided physicists with much food for thought. But it does not disprove relativity.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.''
#:The claims of that item are preposterous. Read the cited paper (or its abstract) carefully. Einstein's statement that clocks would run slower at the equator, due to time dilation, was correct according to special relativity alone. What Einstein didn't realize, because he wouldn't discover general relativity for another 10 years, was that the gravitational time shift would offset that.
#:A "geoid" (the shape dicussed in the paper) is a theoretical shape used in mathematical physics, that is in equilibrium between the effects of centrifugal force (from rotation) and gravity. It is essentially an oblate spheroid. It can be thought of as the shape a rotating planet would take if it were completely fluid. Or it could be thought of as the shape of "global sea level". Jupiter, because of its rapid rotation, has a very pronounced flattening at the poles. Since Jupiter is not solid, its shape is a geoid. The Earth is ''very nearly'' a geoid, of course. But not exactly, because of gravitational nonuniformities, and things like mountains, that can exist because of the Earth's rigidity. No one "made new assumptions about the Earth's shape" to justify anything. The assumption that the Earth's shape is a geoid is a theoretical assumption due to the ''approximately'' fluid nature of the Earth. But no one claims that the Earth's shape is anything other than what it is observed and measured to be.
#:What the paper is about is the fact that the effects of rotational speed and gravitational time dilation happen to cancel each other on an ideal geoid. So all clocks at "sea level" on an ideal geoid-shaped planet run at the same speed. Whether this result is implausible is not for us to say.
#:The cited paper does not refute relativity.
#''The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.''
#:The physics and mathematics underlying the "twin paradox" are well known. That one of the twins will have had to undergo different accelerations from the other before returning to the same point is what enables them to perceive different passage of time. This does not contradict relativity, and Einstein never said that it does. His explanation in terms of different acceleration is correct.
#:The comment about extending the length of the trip so that the acceleration would be ''de minimis'' is wrong. It seems to suggest that the acceleration could be reduced until it is negligible. It can be reduced by lengthening the trip, but it is not negligible. The Lorentz transform, and the equations of motion, are mathematically exact. The integral of a very small function over a long period is still significant. If the twins followed different paths in spacetime, which they must in order to measure different elapsed proper time, they must have undergone different accelerations, however small those differences may have been.
#:Of course, if they never come back to the same point, they could both undergo zero acceleration.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.''
#:Quantum field theory abounds with fields. The Higgs particle has a Higgs field. It has nothing to do with the "luminiferous aether".
#''Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.''
#:Time isn't a vector. It is a component of the vector space known as "spacetime". Vectors have negatives; the word "inverse" is not typically used here. While there are thermodynamic and other reasons for not allowing time to go backwards in the real world, the mathematics of spacetime allow vectors with any components, even negative ones.
#''In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.''
#:That a Bible verse "likely" refers to a scientific phenomenon does not make good science. The objection appears to be claiming that the Bible contradicts the Michelson-Morley experiment, so the latter must be wrong. The Michelson-Morley experiment is very well known, has been repeated countless times, and is incontrovertible. To suggest that the Bible verse in Genesis contradicts such an incontrovertible phenomenon does a disservice to both the Bible and to science.
#''It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].''
#:Modern formulations of the Lorentz aether theory may very well make it completely equivalent to relativity, both special and general. But that doesn't make relativity wrong; it just means that another theory is just as correct. The universal preference of the scientific community for relativity over the Lorentz theory is probably not based on religious faith, but on simplicity, as expressed in [[Occam's razor]]. The Lorentz theory postulates an aether that no experiment can possibly determine the properties of, while relativity postulates no aether.
#''Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."''
#:They are not "beyond understanding". They are simply beyond closed-form solution. Cosmologists work with approximate solutions, calculated by extensive computer calculations, all the time. A well-known example of this is the simulation of galaxy dynamics. Particle physicists do this also, in, for example, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) calculations. It is fortunate that the equations of Keplerian/Newtonian planetary motion were solvable by the mathematical methods of the 17th century—a closed-form solution to a second-order differential equation. Modern physics problems are much harder. But, with modern computers, we can solve the equations of gravity to enormous precision.
#''Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein's Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."''
#:The first cited reference, from which the quote was taken, is a totally crackpot web page, from a web site that seems to specialize in hosting crackpot papers. The writing is utterly illiterate and incoherent, as in this sentence: "According to Faraday's Law it can be explained as that, duo to the magnetic flux in conductor line changing, firstly induced electromotive force dU coming from the line-winded conductor to bring out voltage, then based on differential form <math>I = \frac{-\sigma s dU}{dl}</math> of Ohm's Law, the physical natural would be regarded as 'voltage before electric current' "
#''Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.''
#:The equations of electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations), and their connection with relativity, are well known. Hundreds of electrodynamics textbooks cover this subject. The equations are correct at all realizable speeds, even relativistic (''near'' the speed of light) speeds. (Maxwell's equations are said to be the only equations from classical physics that did not need to be modified for relativity.) The equations correctly describe the behavior of magnets (this is presumably what was meant by "solenoids"), charges, and electric and magnetic fields, even at speeds near the speed of light. Of course the equations don't work ''at'' the speed of light. The cited article never discussed speeds ''near'' the speed of light, only ''at'' the speed of light. The questioner was rightly taken to task for his physically unrealizable assumption.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:science]]

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-04-21T19:05:34Z

JudyJ: /* Why are adjustments needed to GPS? */

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

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

For older discussions, see the archive [[Talk:Theory of relativity/index|index]]. 
|valign="top" style="text-align:right"|[[Image:Conservlogo.png|65px]]
|}


== Mass depending on direction ==

The article states:
:''There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical.''

As [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] on 8 July 2007 (EDT): ''This paragraph is nonsense [..] The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

The observation sited in the first sentence of this article has been discredited. [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp] It appears that a loose fiber-optics cable is to blame for the misreadings. I suggest editing this first sentence, and any other mention of this in the article.--[[User:CarloP|CarloP]] 18:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)

:Issues concerning the neutrino experiment are not yet fully resolved. No problam: I replaced it with another counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?

Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:''Conservapedia'' seeks the truth, not merely what the [[lamestream media]] claim is the truth. Moreover, once one accepts a logical fallacy, then anything false can be proven from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:: Ahh.... But the fact that the conclusion is false does not necessarily render the basis false. I could say "Andy Schlafly founded Conservapedia and therefore I am a pig monkey." I am not a pig monkey, and even if I were, that has nothing to do with you founding this website. But you still did. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:58, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:When looking around the internet, it is obvious that Conservapedia's classification of relativity as [[pseudoscience]] is a source of some amusement and contempt. Aschlafly, could you please answer the two questions I raised above? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:27, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, liberal peer pressure from "around the internet" does not illuminate the truth. If what liberals on the internet said made a dime's bit of difference, then the [[Bible]] would not be the best selling book (by far) and the percentage of people who are [[conservative]] would not be growing (as it does).

::"Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?" Because it's false, it confuses people, it misleads people into stop reading the Bible, and its orthodoxy interferes with the advancement of science for the benefit of all. Other than that, it's not a bad theory!

::"Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition?" The only bias is by liberals who shout down any criticism of the theory. If the theory were so clearly true, then there would be no need for some liberals to rely on [[censorship]] in propping it up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I note that anyone using a GPS is relying on the Theory of Relativity being true, since calculations derived from Relativity are used within a GPS. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:GPS does '''''not''''' rely on the [[Theory of Relativity]], and this has been thoroughly explained on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Hi Aschlafly, I've located at least some of the discussion re GPS in the archives of this talk page, and there a lot of references for me to examine before I can make any further serious comments; certainly there are some references which appear to state that GPS relies on relativity. Can you perhaps draw my attention to what you consider the most important (half-dozen or so) references which indicate that the GPS system does NOT rely on relativity so that I have somewhere to start from? In the meantime I'll continue editing and improving less controversial articles as I have been doing for the last two months (my talk page lists nearly 40 articles I can usefully contribute to). [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:::This note 7 is on [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]:

::::Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

:::The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing: the small effects claimed by the special and general theories nearly cancel each other out for orbiting satellites. From an engineering perspective, it makes far more sense simply to adjust the clocks using synchronization rather than relying on (dubious) theoretical claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Another false claim because of sloppy reading: In the same source by The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, you can find how the authors Fliegel and DiEsposti describe what is happening to the clocks in the satellites:
''Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45 × 10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec. (p. 193).

The text is about the necessity of ''further'' corrections by the ''operational control system'' - there are corrections ''already'' installed in the clocks!

''The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing:'' This sentence is wrong. It has shown to be wrong a couple of times, so it starts to become a lie. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:12, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Theory of Relativity]] was not used to develop GPS, nor would it be sensible to waste time and money doing so. Synchronization is cheaper, simpler, and more reliable. The above quote does not contradict this obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

::The fact that these offsets are implemented in the clocks '''in accord with the theory of relativity''' as you can read in the very source you quoted shows that the [[Theory of Relativity]] is used in the GPS - and this from the very beginning of the project! Please, start to read your sources - completely! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:37, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Please, before we get into any more debate, could someone supply some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:41, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly took his quote from [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti (though he probably isn't aware of this). The paper is about relativistic effects due to moving GPS-'''''receivers''''' (or GPS-receivers in high altitudes) and comes to the conclusion, that at the moment, they don't have to include additional relativistic corrections.

:Aschlafly interprets this as if ''no'' relativistic corrections are implemented in the GPS.
:However, in the paper itself, you will find the section I quoted above, where the authors describe such very corrections within the clocks of the satellites.
:I'm afraid that Aschlafly won't come up with ''some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS'' as there aren't any.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:53, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Folks, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the [[Theory of Relativity]] was used to design GPS. That burden includes describing who, when, where, how, and why. It didn't happen. And if it did, the person who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:It looks to me as if you are trying to put impossible conditions prior to any debate. To avoid a lengthy debate all you have to do is produce some actual references which support your point of view. Is this too much to ask?

:If it didn't happen then you should be able to produce some evidence of this, so '''some actual references please'''. The only 'evidence' you have produced so far is an out-of-context quote from a paper which is concerned primarily with GPS receivers (that same paper mentions the use of relativity-related adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellite transmitters). Surely you must have more than this. Will you accept evidence from engineers and companies involved in designing and building the GPS system? If not, why not? Who would you accept evidence from? The US Department of Defense? Do you seriously expect a member of the public to be able to access internal design documents as your "who, when, where, how, and why" statement implies?

:If you care to check my contribution history you will see that I am actively contributing non-controversial information to articles. This discussion re GPS etc. is only a small part of my activities on Conservapedia. Since I've barely started on considering and consolidating what evidence there is re GPS I would rather have a week or so to look at the evidence before getting into a debate. This should give you ample time to come up with some references to support the separation of GPS and relativity. Simple searches via Google turn up numerous instances where relativity is claimed to be relevant to GPS, but I can't find anything to the contrary and '''I need your help to do so'''. I would really like to see evidence from '''both sides''' of the discussion before entering the debate, so '''some actual references please'''. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 19:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, you're requesting proof that something didn't happen. Moreover, someone with an engineering background (such as myself) would not expect it to have happened. It is like asking for a reference that no green cheese was found on the Moon. No such scientific reference is likely to exist, nor would anyone expect such a reference to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:28, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:: Every single article on GPS says that relativistic adjustments are made to the satellite clocks. Some give the formulas and some give quantitative data on the adjustments. Textbooks explain why the adjustments are necessary. I don't see any reason to doubt that GPS uses relativistic adjustments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:52, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::GPS does make synchronizing adjustments. Call them whatever you like, but those adjustments are not made based on predictions by the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Indeed, it would be a silly waste of time and money to synchronize in such a manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Unless you drive the flying Delorean from ''Back to the Future'', relativity would say that its effect on your car when you're driving at normal speeds is so small it need not be accounting for. The normal error for GPS (about 40 feet) is many magnitudes higher than the error relativity would cause. Now, the GPS in the Flying DeLorean would be another issue. But until that's invented, let's not worry about it, ok? Of course, if you were orienteering, your speed would be even slower than if you were driving. Indeed, if you were moving at any normal speed (even a supersonic jet), relativity would be incredibly small (assuming that it exists as scientists explain it). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:14, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::''GPS does make synchronizing adjustments'' Not only simple synchronizing: read the specifications for the GPS, read the sources ''in full'' which you are quoting, and you will see that all these engineers and scientists don't give a damn that you think that they are wasting ''time and money''.
:::::Aschlafly, your position is only tenable as you are willing to ignore most of the data which is presented to you. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you believe very firmly that relativity has nothing to do with GPS, even though you are unwilling to present any evidence to support this belief, and wish to put severe restrictions on what 'proof' of the relationship other folks may present. I raised some five questions above as to what sort of evidence you might consider. Could you please answer these questions.

::I'd like to ask Mr. Schafly if he could explain what the clock adjustments on GPS satellites are for, the article is not clear, and neither is anything on this talk page.--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:44, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Cahnkj, herewith a summary of the clock-adjustment situation as I (RolandPlankton) see it. Newton's equations of motions say nothing about how clocks keep time. Einstein's equations of relativity imply that identical clocks will vary in their timekeeping (tick at different rates) if they are travelling at different speeds, or if they are at different heights in a gravitational field, or if they are subject to different accelerations; see [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview]. Now the satellites used in the GPS system require very accurate clocks which are in step with ground-based clocks. The paper just quoted provides the various relativistic equations which apply - the satellites are travelling faster than a ground-based receiver, and are at a different height in a gravitational field. Prior to launch the clocks in the GPS satellites are deliberately set to a different tick rate from ground-based clocks, so that when they are in orbit the clocks will appear to tick at the same rate; the difference in tick rates is about 38 nanoseconds per day, and this adjustment can be calculated from the relevant relativistic equations.

:::But the problem is that Aschlafly rejects the Theory of Relativity, and hence rejects any calculation based on that. The only serious argument he has put forth on this current talk page (see preceding section) is an appeal to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Truth the truth]; the quote he provides above is also demolished above. You may wish to consult [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], which is rebutted point by point in [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].

:::Hope this doesn't add too much to the confusion. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 12:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Mr. Schlafly states above that "the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the Theory of Relativity was used to design GPS." (This is a fair requirement, and it seems as this has been done when AugustO referred to the Fliegel and DiEsposti paper above.)

::::But really, isn't the burden of proof on anyone who claims ''anything'' on this site, since Conservapedia Commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable" and Commandment #2 states that users should "always cite and give credit to <nowiki>[their]</nowiki> sources?" --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 19:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Good point. Anyone who asserts ''on this site'' that GPS was designed based on the [[Theory of Relativity]] needs to prove the claim. Note that the claim is implausible because it is cheaper, easier, and more precise to synchronize GPS based on observations rather than theoretical speculation. Also note that no [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for verification of the [[Theory of Relativity]] with GPS.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:55, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

===A Separate Question for Mr. Schlafly About References===

::Aschlafly, as a separate issue, in view of of your apparent attitude to references, could I ask you to have a look at the articles I have been working on over the last two months: [[Pi]], [[Programming language]], [[Compiler]], and the work-in-progress [[Chomsky hierarchy]]. Obviously I'm only asking you to consider the changes I have made. In particular, can you check if the references are acceptable to you, and can you also check that the general style and level of writing is in accordance with Conservapedia's aims? The next article I intend to turn my intention to is [[Context-Free Grammar]], since it seems to me that this fails to satisfy [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]] "Articles on complex topics need an introduction which assumes little or no previous knowledge". [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:03, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Roland, your good edits are appreciated and I've seen no complaints about them. I agree that the [[Context-Free Grammar]] would benefit from a better introduction and look forward to reading what you add there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

A good question was raised above: if synchronization to GPS is not due to the [[Theory of Relativity]], then what is it due to?

And the answer is simply this: [[quantum mechanics]]. There are fundamental uncertainties, and those uncertainties will lead to clock differences. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible. It isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

Where to start with this. This is so bad it isn't even wrong. Could I respectfully suggest that you confine your efforts to areas you understand at least a little bit.

The impossibility of perpetual motion has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. It comes from the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics and predates quantum mechanics by at least 100 years.

The uncertainty principle is also completely irrelevant. If we imagine a 100 kg satellite moving at a velocity of approximately 100 km/s (this is three times the earth's velocity , so is a plausible and easy to handle number). If we know the satelites location to an uncertainty of 1cm then the uncertainty on its velocity implied by the uncertainty principle is 1 part in 10^39 (i.e. completely negligable).[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 13:10, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

:Well, this is progress indeed. Could you please provide references to support the contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects?

:Also, as an aside, how do you say that fundamental uncertainties described by quantum mechanics relate to the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine? Not sure I follow you there. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 23:36, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::It's basic logic. Unless someone denies [[quantum mechanics]] and the fundamental uncertainties it describes -- and many [[Relativists]] do deny it -- then synchronization will be required as a logical result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Do you have any references? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I haven't looked ... nor is it necessary to. I wouldn't look for references to confirm any logical statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Really? Is it fair to say then that this contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects is not something that you have read about but rather something that you yourself concluded from your own knowledge of quantum mechanics and GPS systems? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::P.S. As a result of this discussion I found a couple of articles which appear to confirm that GPS satellites have their clocks adjusted by about 38,000 nanoseconds per day before launch in compliance with relitavistic predictions (both Special and General Relativity are taken into account). The articles are [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp here] and [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html here]. Is there really any question that this is what is happening? I would think that if these sources are to be questioned that some sort of reference should be provided. A mere assertion that the adjustments are as a result of quantum mechanical effects and that it is a matter of logic would not usually be enough for any serious encyclopedia. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::The references are [[hearsay]]. Logic is far more compelling, more efficient, and more likely to lead to the correct result.

::::::To take the analogy mentioned above, if you agree that [[perpetual motion machines]] are impossible, what is the reason?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:45, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Quantum mechanics gives a probabilistic model of phenomena. Indeed, the page you linked for quantum mechanics states:
::"If we measure such an observable, generally the wave function does not predict exactly which value we will obtain. Instead, the wave function gives us the probability that a certain value will be obtained."
:If this is the case, that means that Quantum mechanical phenomena are ''unpredictable''. How is it that clock adjustments can be made based on unpredictable events, ie, probabilities?
:I'd also like to know how the GPS system is affected by these phenomena.
:--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 01:51, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Logic is a nice thing. But engineers like to calculate. So could you give us a Ballpark estimate for the quantum mechanic effects which come into play here? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:(Edit conflict x2) Andy, as a lawyer I can assure you that hearsay is a [[legal]] concept which is of little use in this sort of scientific discussion. Whilst I understand that non-legally trained people sometimes confuse the nature and applicability of the concept, I can confirm that it has no relevance here.

:The difficulty here arises from your wanting to assert the truth of a matter without providing either references or even the basis for you own logic. Just saying "quantum mechanics" is hardly enlightening. Do you deny that GPS satellite clocks are adjusted by approximately 38,000 nanoseconds as referred to in the references that I provided? If not, do you say that there is a quantum calculation that accounts for that adjustment? What is that quantum calculation and what is it based on? I am really having difficulty in understanding the basis for all of this. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 02:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, this reference [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] has been pointed out to you several times already. Since it is published by folks actually working on the GPS system, I hardly think that it qualifies as 'hearsay'. It contains all the relevant relativistic equations, which are not really that complicated, and derives the 38 nanosecond figure quoted above. An assertion on scientific matters without any evidence can't really be taken seriously. Can we please see the quantum mechanical equations and calculations which come up with the same or similar result? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, I'm inclined to suspect that your disbelief in relativity is so strong that you are unwilling to consider any evidence which might indicate that relativity could be correct, and are hence flailing around looking for some other explanation as to what actually happens (GPS clock adjustment by 38 ns). Would you care to comment on my suspicion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Quote: "A logical statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false." [http://www.ontotext.com/factforge/logical-statement].

So Aschlafly, why don't you need a reference to confirm a logical statement? Just because a statement is logical doesn't mean that it is true. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

: It would be helpful to have a more modern reference. GPS switched to a system of daily updates to the satellites. Maybe those relativistic formulas cause errors that require daily clock synchronizations to correct. Not likely. But to prove the point we ought to find a reference that says that the satellites still use the 38 ns/day relativistic adjustments, and that the daily corrections are much smaller than that. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:18, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::The best I've found so far is [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf] from Physics Today, May 2002. This confirms the initial adjustment and mentions further on page 7: "Additional small frequency offsets arise from clock drift, environmental changes, and other unavoidable effects such as the inability to launch the satellite into an orbit with precisely the desired semimajor axis. The satellite clock frequencies are adjusted so that they remain as close as possible to the frequency of the Naval Observatory's clock ensemble." Unfortunately it doesn't give the actual size of the adjustments, thought the word 'small' does indicate it as being much less than the initial adjustment. I rather like the last sentence of this paper: "Ordinary users of the GPS, though they may not need to be aware of it, have thus become dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:26, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The lack of evidence, amid so much political pressure to prove it, is indicative that no proof can be found. Notice how no [[Nobel Prize]]s have been given for GPS confirming the [[Theory of Relativity]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:01, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::If you want to use the [[Nobel Prize]] as evidence against relativity, might I direct you to:
:::http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/relativity/
:::Where the official Nobel Prize website discusses various experiments related to relativity, and the relevant [[Nobel Prize]]s awarded for them.
:::--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:32, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::::GPS is not even on that overly broad list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, I've tried to confine my evidence to items which not even you can claim as 'hearsay'. A simple Google search turns up hundreds of references linking GPS and relativity, but in view of your earlier dismissal of such as hearsay, I thought I'd better stick to indisputable items. At least there is some fairly convincing evidence linking GPS with relativity (including all the relevant equations and the result of applying these equations), unlike your assertion linking GPS with quantum mechanics, where you have produced precisely zero evidence. You still haven't responded to my comments and question re 'logical statements' above. So, where is the evidence for your assertion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 02:46, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:::There is no credible evidence that the [[Theory of Relativity]] had anything to do with the development of GPS. In addition, not even the pro-Relativity [[Nobel Prize]] [[liberals]] say that GPS proves the theory.

:::My comment about [[quantum mechanics]] was in response to a question about why synchronization is needed. Unless someone thinks that [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible (have you answered my question about that?), then synchronization will be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Could you please clarify what the connection between synchronisation, quantum mechanics and perpetual motion machines is? From what I've learned, clock synchronisation between the satellites is necessary because any signal between them travels at a finite speed, namely the speed of light. Do you deny that? The claim is that in order to compute the signal travel time and thus to synchronize the clocks correctly, the relative velocities and the differences in gravitational potential due to the different altitudes of the satellites (and Earth's surface) have to be taken into account. Do you think that is wrong? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:56, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

Lets stick to the subject (GPS and relativity); perpetual motion is a complete red herring, and I'm not sure how Nobel prizes come into the picture (we're debating science, not prizes).
On the basis of '''actual evidence produced''' in this discussion so far, I think that we can confidently state four facts:
#Prior to launch, the clock in a GPS satellite is set to run about 38 nanoseconds/day different from an otherwise identical clock on the earth's surface.
#When in orbit the GPS clock then appears to tick at the same rate as an identical clock on the earth's surface.
#Equations based on the theory of relativity accurately come up with this figure of around 38 nanoseconds.
#No evidence has been produced to show how quantum mechanics is involved.

If anyone disagrees with any of the above, they need to bear in mind ('''emphasis''' added):
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 1 Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''.
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 2 '''Always cite''' and give credit to your sources.
:from Conservapedia:Guidelines/Reliability 4 A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated.

Hope this summary helps. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:41, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

: That is the story as I have heard it. Except that I heard that the 38 ns/day adjustment was remotely switchable, because of relativity skeptics who did not believe that it would be necessary. I also don't agree that GPS is "dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." The GPS system has the ability to measure the daily adjustments that it needs. So even with any relativity theory or Einstein conception, it could just make those 38 ns/day adjustments and GPS would have all the accuracy it has today. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::In the summary I was careful to stick to facts supported by evidence, and to avoid saying "GPS is dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time", even though the two main references I have quoted do in fact say this. All I said was that the adjustment calculated according to relativity agrees with the actual adjustment, from which one might reasonably conclude, in this instance at least, that relativity is consistent with reality. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 15:44, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I note that no one has proposed any credible alternative theory as to why the orbiting clocks tick at a different speed from surface clocks, so until some better theory comes along I'm quite happy to stick with relativity. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:In the last week, apart from one clarification question from [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], no one has challenged the 'four facts' summary I provided above. According I will shortly move a copy of this summary along with the relevant references in to the talk pages of other relevant articles, and will then update those articles to match. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 13:36, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Beware: in your fact #1, the correction is 38 '''micro'''seconds, not '''nano'''seconds. See [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html]. My own rough calculations also agree that it's microseconds. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 15:05, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

== Logic and the GPS ==

*Atomic watches work on the Earth quite fine
*[[Quantum mechanics]] describe the physics of ''very small length and energy scales''
*Satellites are macroscopic objects.
*Even a precision of 1cm on the surface of the Earth isn't a very small length.

So which kind of logic tells us that quantum mechanical effects influence the synchronization of the clocks? Why are not only the scientists involved lying, but also their calculations?

For me it seems to be a logical conclusion that you, Aschlafly, are even more knowledgeable of Greek than of Science! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:He's trying to apply the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle to satellites? Are you kidding me? That principle is used for things at the ATOMIC LEVEL! Using ANYTHING with regards to quantum mechanics in an argument about satellites is absurdism and/or ignorance of the subject matter! Seriously Andy, I know you hate the Theory of Relativity, but you should really leave science to those who understand it. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 16:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::For someone who thinks that Brownian motion is about motion at the sub-atomic level your suggestions of scientific superiority ring hollow.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 10:15, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

== Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession ==

I removed the phrase "[precession can be understood by] factoring in the gravitational pull due to other planets". The first sentence of that paragraph says the opposite, that the extra precession cannot be understood "even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets". Unless I'm reading it wrong, it sounded like a contradiction. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 16:51, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:Where is the contradiction? If the exponent in Newtonian gravity is slightly adjusted, then it predicts the Mercury precession.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:01, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I'm curious as to the justification for changing a formula in Newtonian gravity. Do you change it for every situation, or just for this one special case? Can you give us the adjusted formula, and specify the exact change? For such a change in physics which has been in use for over 250 years I would like to see a reference, preferably several good references. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:25, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
:::The old Newcomb-Hall hypothesis. [http://books.google.at/books?id=oKGlHjDzGjQC&lpg=PA379&dq=newcomb%20hall%20precession&pg=PA379#v=onepage&q=newcomb%20hall%20precession&f=false This book] says that it contradicts the observations of the orbit of the moon, which rules out a change of exponent of of the required magnitude. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 18:30, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::The contributors to this section might be pleased to see that the issue has been discussed, at great length, right here at Conservapedia. An entire debate page was created for it: [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity%3F]] This was a discussion that spilled over from [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].

::Furthermore, the subject was discussed on the relativity page itself, in the section [[Theory_of_relativity#Experimental_Verification_of_Relativity]]. There is a large chart showing the precessions of the planets under the Newcomb-Hall theory and under general relativity. They are the last two columns of the chart. The actual observations match the last column very well (see [http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm], taking into account that it's very hard to get accurate reading on the outer planets, since their precession is so small.

::One can see that the last two columns of the chart match only for Mercury. That is, Newcomb and Hall "tweaked" the exponent to the value of 2.000000157 in order to get Mercury's precession correct.

::Under the Newcomb-Hall theory, the precession of any orbiting body would be .000000078 revolutions per orbit. This works for Mercury, but is too high for the other planets, and way too high for the Moon. This is why the theory was discarded. With modern artificial satellites, such as the International Space Station, an orbit takes only an hour and a half, and the precession would be enormous. The clearly wrong value for the Moon is why the Newcomb-Hall theory was quickly discarded.

::Under general relativity, we know that the precession per orbit is proportional to the square of the planet's orbital velocity. Mercury has the highest velocity, so it has readily measurable precession. Artificial satellites are much slower, and the Moon is slower still.

::I personally don't see accepting the possible truth of such a thoroughly discredited theory as evidence of open-mindedness, but open-mindedness is admittedly a very tricky issue. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:11, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

::::"Mathematical physicists" (an [[oxymoron]] - I'll add it to the list) insisted that it was impossible for the exponent in Newtonian gravity to be anything other than '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). With the political push to promote the [[Theory of Relativity]], the influence of the mathematical physicists rose too, and that is what shut down the valid inquiry into whether the Newtonian exponent should be '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). But any logical inquiry must admit the possibility, or even the likelihood, that it would not be exactly 2 (or -2).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:31, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

The issue here is not whether the exponent is precisely two or not but that you have to have a model which explains all (or at least as many as possible) observations. To get the precision of Mercury right you produce a model which then fails to explain the observed precession of every other body in the solar system. This seems to be a good experimental demonstration that Newcomb-Hall is wrong (or least inadequate as a model). [[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:32, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] got us on the subject of the Newtonian exponent. My comment makes no mention of it. I'll answer his original question "where's the contradiction?": I quoted two sentences, both containing the phrase "other planets". One sentence said the precession '''can''' be understood by including the effects of the other planets, whereas the other said the precession '''cannot''' be understood that way. It is just rhetoric. The contradiction has little to do with physics. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 12:06, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence of article contradicted by the rest ==

Given that main body of the article now largely deals with the things GR can explain (including the precession of Mercury) should not the first sentance be changed?[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:37, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:E=mc²

2012-04-07T22:07:45Z

JudyJ: /* Some questions */Looks like I botched a reference. Sorry.

==I'm Finding This a Little Hard to Understand==
First off, E = mc2 describing a relationship between energy and matter is only one corollary. It is also part of a well known problem in chemistry... Or is isotopic mass not less than the sum of it's parts? The equation itself HAS been derived from the Theory of Relativity, and is a direct consequence of the energy momentum four vector for an object with 0-momentum. The quote you provide from the paper states that the theory is not enough for a rigorous PROOF, but it never tries to deny the derivability of the equation. Derivation and proof are two entirely different things.

==This Article Could Use Sources or Better Explanation==
Wow. Classic Andy. Unsourced statements supposedly contradicting well-established theories of physics. No real proof other than "the Bible says it's not true," even though this is an extremely uncommon interpretation Genesis. --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 01:06, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's a start for now, and will expand over time. That's how wikis work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Doesn't it relate energy to mass? The speed of light is just a constant here. [[User:IanR|IanR]] 02:22, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Humbug ==

The phrase ''meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement '' (as used in the article) fits the first paragraph to a t.

Aschlafly, please try to refute the explanation of the experiments of John Cockroft and Ernest Walton, which is accepted generally under physicists. And try to give some sources - or if not, some of your own calculations!

If not, just erase the first section.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:23, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Nobel Lecture ==

I took out the link to the Nobel lecture, it can be found in the short summary. But be aware that John Cockroft is using the dreaded formula with ease (but without stating so explicitly - why should he, it's already generally accepted!) An astute reader, who not only searches for the formula finds e.g., the formulation:

:'''This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units.'''

Indeed, these are the ≈ 17MeV!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

==Irrelevant claims==
Are these claims of so called "experimental verification" valid or useful? If you look at enough so-called science you can find people claiming anything. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 12:59, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:''you can find people claiming anything'' Indeed - and that's why there is a difference between the unsubstantiated claims in the first section, and the actual experiments in the following paragraphs. If you have a good explanation of the outcome of these experiments (some math would be nice), feel free to add your personal ''claim''.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:03, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Why do you feel that I need to do that? I understand that you may wish to believe relativity is true, but that is no reason to impose your personal beliefs on others.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:40, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::Thinking that all claims have the same validity seems not a very conservative position. I don't expect you to accept my personal beliefs, but there is a tendency in physics that the claims which are backed up by those willing to do the experiments and the maths have a greater following than random insights. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:47, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::I don't understand why your personal beliefs are even included in the article.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:58, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::*Because they are bolstered by experiments...
:::::*...and they aren't just my beliefs - in fact it will be very hard to find a physicist who doesn't share them. And that's something which shouldn't be easy to ignore in an article on a physical subject.
:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If science is your religion then you will find scientists who share your views. I still don't see why they should be hosted here. The introduction makes the Biblical position clear.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:07, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Religion is my religion, science is my hobby. And just because there is one single interpretation of a few verses of Genesis out there which you think to contradict the experiments of the physicists doesn't shatter my religious beliefs nor my trust in physics. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
← Now you have intrigued me: what's your definition of pseudoscience? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Pssst! DavidEdwards! You're trying waaaaay too hard. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:Too hard about what?
:As far as the pseudoscience question is concerned - "science" which is used to promote a worldview which has no basis in moral reality is pseudoscience. Science which is designed to suggest that morality is relative clearly falls into this category.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

==Question==
This snipet of sentence appears in the introduction: "...''a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" Let's compare that to the entire sentence it was lifted from: "'''''Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally,''' a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" One can't help but notice that the part of the sentence that states that the theory has been observed to be valid in real world experimentation, has been surgically removed. Why is this? Is it because it stands in contradiction to the claim the lead author of this article is trying to promulgate? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the [[hearsay]] that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR? Liberal conspiracy? Also, do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:24, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the [[Theory of Relativity]] may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Yes. We already know the Theory of Relativity is an incomplete model of our universe. So yes, the theory may be "false", but the one that takes it's place will most likely have many of the same properties. Secondly, would I approve of a "well-written paper that criticized it"? I don't know what that means. I'm not a physicist, so I don't see what difference my "approval" of said paper would make. Now that I've been so kind as to answer your questions, would you return the courtesy and answer the ones I posted above? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 22:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::The qualifications on your answer render it almost meaningless. I'm not asking whether your approval of a paper would make a difference, or your opinion about whether you think the replacement of the [[Theory of Relativity]] will "most likely" be another theory of relativity. The question was simple and straightforward, referring to a paper critical of the theory of relativity without any appeasement to those who insist on believing in it. An unqualified answer is requested.

:::::Also, did you ever answer my simple question on [[Talk:Main Page]] about how much time you've spent reading the [[Bible]] this month?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Come off it Schlafly. This article is not about my Bible reading, is it? No. Does my opinion of the publishing criteria of physics academia have any bearing on the assertions you are trying make? No. Again: Do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 23:11, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::Andy, do you accept the possibility that the Theory of Relativity may be correct, and would you approve a well-written paper or book that supported it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Some points ==

*''Misplaced claims of experimental verification'': if you want to put on the disclaimer ''misplaced'', please explain the results of the experiments in another way.
*''Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR?'' But they do: remember the neutrino thing? Or the papers of H. Ives? In fact the first event has shown that especially the publication of experiments (seemingly) violating currently accepted theories gets attention!
*Taking only the second half of ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."'' makes you looking deceptive. Take the whole sentence and try to explain the motivation of the first half. Otherwise anyone who looks the quote up will suspect an ulterior motive!
*The whole first section is a train wreck.
*''[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of [[gravity]].'' Only when you accept the general theory of relativity it is, otherwise inertial mass and gravitational mass are quite different animals.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:46, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::I have attempted to clarify the last point on the [[Mass]] page, and also removed the fact template from the first paragraph, since the explanation is given later on. As it stood, the "citation needed" banners following important points tended to undercut the authority of the article.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:29, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The problem is not a confusion of weight and mass, but the conflation of gravitational and inertial mass. In the classical theory, there is no reason why both should be the same, it's just an experimental fact.
::So, I'm sorry, your new entry didn't help.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::But they always are the same, aren't they? I don't see why knowing or not knowing the reason (yet) has any bearing on the question.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:43, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly writes: ''Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.''
::::E=mc² isn't about gravity, to invoke it here is a deflection. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::: OK. But bear in mind that this page clearly exists to provide a counterweight to certain liberal views. To do that, clarity of message is needed, and a "citation needed" banner has a deflating effect on the strength of that clarity. So perhaps you could suggest a wording that might be acceptable without the "citation needed" bit?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman ==

Try to explain a complicated formula in 1-2min, then have a single sentence of this soundbit taken out. You can bet that this may sound meaningless. That's no fault of the formula. I'll change the title back. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The quotes illustrate how difficult it is to explain the concept to a layman. Take a look [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/expe-text.html here], where you can find the quotes in context. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:16, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The quotes were solicited to describe the meaning of the equation to laymen, not to illustrate how difficult that is. The difficulty arises from the meaningless nature of the equation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Actually the meaning of the equation is very clear: the total energy contained in matter is its mass multiplied by the speed of light in a vaccum squared. Experiment after experiment, and nuclear reactor after nuclear reactor, has clearly demonstrated that the total energy released by a reaction is the lost mass multiplied by c2. Therefore whether the theories of relativity are true or not, E=mc2 is true. Equally, even if classical Newtonian mechanics was false, the kinetic energy of a moving mass would still be accurately described by Ek=1/2mv2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:34, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Indeed. Internet quotes are really not very useful. A skilled researcher can always find someone saying something to justify their position however bizarre or immoral. This is a typical weakness (and response!) of those who have no real moral or religious basis for their convictions. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 19:04, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::These quotes are absolutely meaningless. It looks like you took random sentences from the PBS article and then inserted them into the article as if they had any real significance. This is made even more moot when you consider the fact that the article claims that "Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc²" and then you go on to quote three. Not to mention, most of the quotes aren't actually explaining what the equation means - a basic understanding of algebra and what the symbols mean is sufficient to understand its basic meaning - but rather what it entails, its implications. Tim Halpin-Healy's quote I think is better than taking some random sentences and then implying that they mean that physicists don't know what E=mc² means. --[[User:Tyg13|Tyg13]] 15:58, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::The problem is that '''E=m2does not meaning anythimg that makes sense. Anyone is welcome to try to explain it here. Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, it doesn't. It causes your energy to increase by a number of foot-pounds equal to '''one pound''' times the speed of light squared. I've explained this to you already and it isn't difficult. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::The equation is essentially just a conversion ratio, its not difficult to understand that units of energy (Whether it is Joules, pound-foot, or erg) look essentially like a velocity squared times a mass (in SI units - kg m^2/s^2) this is not relativity or theory dependent, its the definition of Energy. The Special Relativistic analysis that results in the basic equation just determines that the conversion ratio is precisely that universal constant '''c''' in whatever units are convenient. There is no blindingly obvious or intuitive reason why this SHOULD be the case (conceivably the conversion ratio could have any number of complicated dimensionless constants in front), but basic mathematical logic allows us to derive this simple relationship from the postulates of Special Relativity. That being said, its a rather useless equation on everyday scales. In reality, after consuming a pound of cake your body begins to break down the chemical bonds in the sugars/fats/proteins to extract usable energy, about 1500 food calories worth of it. If you had a precise enough scale and could somehow keep a human in a hermetically sealed bag that prevents the escape of any moisture/gas etc. you would be able to measure that after consuming and digesting the cake your bodyweight would not be +1 lb, but about 70 pg (picograms - 10^-12 grams) less, so if you weighed 150.0lb and ate a pound of cake (total of 151lb), after digestion you would actually weigh 70pg less than 151lb. It is important to note that this "mass" isn't "lost" it is merely the "weight" of the energy stored in the chemical bonds, in other words in a pound of cake there is (1lb - 70pg) of stuff and 70pg worth of "chemical energy" with a conversion ratio of c^2. If you had some magic machine that could convert mass to energy at 100% efficiency the detonation of a body sized bomb would release 20 times more energy than the largest nuclear weapon detonated by man kind, however due to the nature of nuclear transitions/processes such a 100% conversion rate is not possibe . On the scale of nuclear bonds (order of MeV) this difference becomes conceivably measurable, but even so, in the detonation of a hiroshima sized nuclear weapon, the loss of mass due to the nuclear fission is approximately 500mg, the rest of the nuclear material is dispersed as fallout, considering that there was ~60kg of nuclear material in the weapon, this corresponds to an energy "efficiency" ~1%, which is typical of fission devices. In a 100MT nuclear bomb this is conceivably larger at nearly 5kg, and the fusion type weapon that can achieve this high yields has considerably higher mass-energy conversion efficiency at around ~20% [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:53, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: Another way of thinking about is this. Consider your typical AA batery, it is not a difficult stretch of the mind to understand that this battery stores electrical energy, approximately 2Ampere-hours at 1.5v which is approximately 5000J worth of STORED electical energy. Now, CONSUMING this battery does not cause your kinetic energy to increase by 5000J the same way that consuming a pound of cake does not cause your kinetic energy to increase by 1lb*c^2, you are still limited by your ability to convert between different energy sources. So A RC car would be able to use that battery to move around for several hours, YOU on the other hand will most likely just pass the battery through your body and the basic chemicals that are storing this electric energy will come out unaltered. The same way that a pound of cake can sustain you for a day, but try stuffing it into the battery compartment of your RC car and it won't move an inch. "Mass-energy" works much the same way, sure consuming a pound of cake increases your "rest energy" or by an enormous amount, but in reality there is no way to convert mass directly to energy so its much the same as swallowing a battery or stuffing cake into the RC car. [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 17:05, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:At any rate, eating a pound of cake, is not nuclear physics, it is chemistry, where your cells digest and utilize the sugars within. Protiens are also converted into sugar.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 18:28, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

== Aschlafly, could you give us... ==

... your interpretation of the results of the experiment by Cockroft and Walton? Cockroft describes in his Nobel Lecture how the kinetic energy of the alpha-particles could be provided by ''diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.'' (p. 170). Please take into account that this isn't about energy in form of electromagnetic waves!

If you don't address the results of the actual experiments, all your claims are just meaningless verbiage.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:Cockcroft (please spell his name correctly) does not even cite E=mc2 in his Nobel lecture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::You don't think that it is ''implied'' by the quote that AugustO provided? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::No, I don't. E=mc2 is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability. The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

From the lecture: ''It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.''

Aschlafly, your ignorance is showing:
17.2 MeV /c² = 1.602*10-19kg m²/s² *17.2 *109/(3*108 m/s)² = 3.0616 * 10-29kg = 0.0184 amu

In fact as this is such a ''general truth of universal applicability'', J. Cockroft could take it for granted that his scientifically literate audience would be able to make this calculation.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::One question, though: We have four protons and four neutrons on the left hand side of the equation, and four protons and four neutrons on the right hand side. So why the difference in mass?
:::Also, forgive my ignorance, but why is the 'energy' measured in volts? Volts are not a measure of energy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

*Bainbridge measured the mass of 7Li directly, using mass spectrometry.
*Indeed, three protons and four neutrons weight less than a 7Li - kernel
*Energy is measured in this cases in [[Electron-Volts]]. One electron volt is the energy of an electron which passed through a potential of 1 Volt.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:54, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, please contribute something substantive instead of talking up a storm. Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::James Wilson, please don't interfere in interesting and substantive discussions. Thank you! [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 12:12, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::"Baobab", please state what substance is coming out of this conversation. You have had a history of engaging in hefty talk. Please start contributing. I have had some great insights contributing in a few articles today and will continue to do so. Many thanks for your future contributions.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:47, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::"James Wilson", AugustO is clarifying things and giving us some great insights, as CPalmer's latest reply shows. Discussions will often lead to better articles, which is why your interference was totally uncalled for. I guess your only motive was to defend Mr. Schlafly, but he can take care of himself and really doesn't need your help. Regards, [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 13:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::Thanks, AugustO. Relativity or no relativity, I am learning a lot from this discussion.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:00, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::You are posing excellent questions! Indeed it should be of interest for Aschlafly, too:
:::'''Aschlafly, two protons (1.0073amu) and two neutrons (1.0087amu) have a combined mass of 4.0320 amu. An alpha-particle - existing from two protons and two neutrons - has a mass of 4.0015 amu. How do you explain this diminution of mass?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:42, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::What real evidence do you have that these particles even exist? No doubt you've read it in a book or some "qualified person" has said it is true. In reality you accept these things on the word of somebody else - in other words your belief in the existence of these particles is a matter of scientific faith in something which you have no personal knowledge. There is obviously no problem with believing things on faith, but please don't pretend it's "true because science says it's true". Christians get their real truth from a higher authority.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::I find Mr O's position to be rather odd. He insists that Mr Schlafly - and only Mr Schlafly answers his questions. Yet at the same time Mr O steadfastly ignores comments specifically directed at him.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 16:11, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If you're referring to your question about how he knows that protons and neutrons really exist, I suspect he thought it wasn't worth answering. I tend to agree. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:15, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

@DavidEdwards: Sorry, [[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]], I didn't want to ignore you. I hadn't caught up after the databank mishap, I'm afraid.
So, to answer your questions: At school, we performed a couple experiments -there were teltron tubes, the Millikan the photo-electric effect, the Millikan Oil Drop experiment, de Broglie's electron diffraction experiments, etc. These experiments confirmed my persuasion that the electrons, protons and neutrons are physically real entities. The proposed theories explained these effects - and sitting in front of a computer, I'm surprised that you aren't willing to accept the theories behind semi-conductors. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:25, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
@SamCoulter: There is some truth in your statement, too: it's like asking a priest: ''let's talk about your religion without mentioning Jesus''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:28, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Restoration ==

I could restore this page to the last version which I had edited. I don't know whether there were more entries. This should help to restore the article: perhaps one positive effect could be that Aschlafly marvels about the questions in the previous section for a while and rethinks his position! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:36, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Instead of the source - tag ==

*''E=mc² is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate all matter to light.''
It relates matter to energy, the square of the speed of light is just the conversation factor
*''In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism).''
It isn't about gravitational mass, but about inertial mass. To identify both means to invoke the General Theory of Relativity
* ''Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap. ''
How so? It works!
* ''Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.''
So, physicists should just give up looking for it? I dare to say that there are many Christian physicists - they may just not follow your special interpretation of Genesis!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:29, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

== A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton ==

I'd appreciate an answer by Aschlafly (and him alone) to the following questions:

'''1.''' Do you accept that the mass of the Lithium-kernel (7Li), of alpha-particles (4He) and of protons (1H) can be measured fairly accurately, as these are charged particles?

'''2.''' Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockroft and Walton, i.e.
:::{|
!particle
!mass
|-
|1H||1.0072 amu
|-
|4He||4.0011 amu
|-
|7Li||7.0130 amu
|}
If not, which values do you think to be right?

'''3.''' Do you agree that before the reaction the mass of the particles involved was 8.0202 amu?

'''4.''' Do you agree that after the reaction the mass of the particles involved is 8.00220 amu?

'''5.''' Do you agree that there is a mass decrease of 0.0180 amu?

'''6.''' Before the experiment, the Li was at rest and the proton had a kinetic energy of less than 1MeV. Do you accept these values?

'''7.''' After the experiment, a pair of alpha-particles was observed, both having an kinetic energy of 8.6MeV. Do you think that this value is correct?

'''8.''' Can you tell me where the mass went? Can you tell me where the energy came from?

'''9.''' If your answer to question 8. is ''no'' in both accounts, than my answer is that there is a theory which explains the conversion of mass to energy, even if you don't like it!

As this theory works for this experiment, and for all the other fissions and fusions, it isn't liberal claptrap, but a meaningful theory. And you can't blame physicists for using it! Of course, you can blame journalist to abuse the formula - but this isn't the result of ''liberal physics'', but of ''bad reporting'', as an abuse of the dictum ''1+1=2'' doesn't reflect badly on number-theorists, but only on the person misattributing it.

Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:04, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that '''''E=mc2'''''. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, you haven't answered any of the questions above! Instead you are talking about something completely different:
*We are not talking about a ''chemical'' reaction! You should know the difference.
*Cockroft claims that the energy comes from the loss of mass - and he calculates it according to ''E=mc²''. Please read (and understand!) his lecture.
*Please give a list of a few (or at least a single) experiment which contradicts the formula. This should be easy, as you stated that ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula''. Oh, wait, you made that up...
*Please answer the questions 1 to 9: all the question are covered in Cockroft's lecture, so I'd be interested in your explanation!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:32, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, if you cannot even spell Cockcroft's name properly, how can Andy take anything you say seriously? --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 22:03, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

== Move ==

Could you please move this article to [[Essay:E=mc²]]? Then I could ignore all the misleading and outright wrong statements in the first section! Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:57, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Experimental Facts ==

Aschlafly, on the one hand side, you state that ''no experiment distinguishes between "gravitational" and "inertial" mass'' - and that seems good enough for you. On the other hand side, you have a problem with the statement that E=mc² ''continues to be affirmed experimentally''. Do you spot the inconsistency? Indeed, I could write: ''the equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass has never been mathematically derived from first principles in classical mechanics, indeed, a rigorous proof of this equivalence is probably beyond the purview of classical theory.''

BTW, omitting the first part of the sentence ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally..."'' makes you look very disingenuous (even if you have good motives) to anyone who looks up the link to the abstract!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:07, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance. 99% of people know what mass is, and it's directly related to weight, not electrostatic energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:38, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::And the remaining percent are the physicists which draw such distinctions with good reason! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]]
:::Even more confusing is that the article states mass is a measure of inertia. Inertia is resistance to acceleration, and that has nothing to do with gravity at all. The article as it stands is simply inaccurate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:51, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly: ''....may not even have any justification in the paper''
::::Aschlafly, havn't you read the paper? Here is a part of the conclusion:
:::::''Einstein produced about 18 virtuoso derivations and demonstrations all aimed at establishing the mass-energy principle. We have shown that although each of them gave evidence for the applicability of E0 = mc² to a particular set of circumstances, no one derivation, or collection of them taken together, succeeded in providing a definitive proof of its complete generality. That should not be surprising because the same situation occurs, for example, with F = ma, which is a different kind of relation than E0 = mc². Even so, 300 years of successful theoretical work have not proven the correctness of F = ma. Indeed, relativity showed that this expression, one of the bedrocks of classical mechanics, holds only approximately.
::::Here is another excerpt, on mass, electromagnetism etc:
:::::''In the 19th century, a number of European physicists, including the leading theoretician of the time, Hendrik Lorentz, were working to establish that mass was, in whole or in part, electromagnetic. There were primarily two competing theories, one by Lorentz, the other by Max Abraham. Both agreed that depending on the relative direction of its velocity and acceleration, an “electron” a generic charged particle moving through the aether could manifest both transverse and longitudinal speed-dependent mass components. There was even experimental evidence that seemed to confirm as much. Electromagnetic theory was then at the center of physics.''
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:56, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::(May I add that I think one shouldn't make such fundamental statements as ''E=mc² has no meaning'', if one only skims a few abstracts! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]])

Aschlafly, maybe you have not the time (or the access) to read the actual papers - as you should when drawing conclusions. But perhaps you can take a look at [http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Basic.html Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's ABC of Nuclear Science] to refresh the basics?Even there, they use ''Einstein's famous equation...''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:44, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== ...purports to relate all matter to light ==

When I write that for iron I get:
::V [cm³] * 7.874 g/cm³ = M [g]
I don't relate the mass to 7.8474, but to the volume. So, similarly Einstein's equations says that mass is proportional to energy, not light. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:38, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:But the constant applied in this case is the (square of the) speed of light! Are you saying that that is a coincidence? If so, why not just say "E=mc"?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:57, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::no, of course not, but we could write, e.g., Eε0 = m/μ0: the relationship is given between mass and energy... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::But the relationship itself is somehow connected to light. Or maybe, the relationship is connected with some third factor that also determines the speed of light.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:58, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::::yes, but the c² is a constant. Does the equation E/c²=m relate all energy to light? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:18, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::Yes - the equation in any form relates mass, energy, and the speed of light. I think the article doesn't emphasise the light-energy relationship because it's the mass-energy relationship that appears absurd once the theory of relativity is discounted.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:22, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Even if you discount the theory of relativity, the experimental facts remain: in experiments where mass is deleted or created, this happens with the release or absorption of energy. And this energy is given by ≈8.99*1016m²/s² times the mass... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:31, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== Misleading footnote ==

::(Your footnote about the units is bogus. SI units are not arbitrary, since eg Joules can be derived from other SI units including kilograms, metres and seconds. Therefore, the relationship to light ''is'' (purported to be) a natural one.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:00, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Which footnote about units? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Ah, I see, no, not ''my'' footnote. The text was inserted by [[User:GregG/RSS_6#Mon.2C_26_Mar_2012_18:05:11_GMT_.28edit_by_MihailD.29_2|MihailD]], and obviously the equation holds in other systems, too. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:10, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

I took out the main part of the footnote: it should be obvious that in a physical equation only compatible physical units can be used, and that otherwise conversion factors have to be introduced. But there is no problem, if we have c in feet/h, m in pounds, and E in pound*feet²/h²
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:30, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:I see - my apologies. I thought you had added the footnote in order to try and make the point above. I agree that in any sensible unit system the equation will work (assuming the theory is right of course).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:32, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:Looks like [[User:MihailD|MihailD]] received a lifetime block for this and related edits, so he'll be unable to explain or justify his comments. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:58, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::That's a pity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== We will, we will, we will ==

Generally I enjoy the great contribution of SamHB. My only rub: the ''royal we'' - ''we will dispel'', ''we will show'', ''we don't do''. I don't think that this is the best way to phrase an encyclopedic article, and I'd like to see alternatives. For the moments, I just commented out some of the occurrences which in my opinion spoiled the fun of reading the article....

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:It is a bit chatty. The first one could be rephrased "This article sets out to...". I have reworded two of the others, and the rest might possibly be omitted entirely.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:44, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== I don't understand... ==

Why you guys destroyed a wonderful original piece of work by Mr. Schlafly. There are hundreds of books and web sites that explain relativity, why did you feel the need to reproduce that content here? --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:18, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:Perhaps because they are right and he is wrong? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you still haven't answered my [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|reasonable questions abouts this subject]]. To be ignorant on a subject isn't that big a deal, but to willfully stay ignorant while lecturing about it, that is! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:32, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

BTW, the ''wonderful original piece of work'' was not destroyed - you find it embedded in the text. A blanket reversion of the work of a couple of editors should be a no-no, please give reasons for reverting at least for each paragraph! And answer the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|questions!]] [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:42, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Protection of the Article ==

Stated reason: ''(with reluctance, and repeated reversions; for now, post specific suggestions for edits on the talk page)''

Aschlafly, this must be one of these definitions of irony, as I asked for specific reasons for your deletions of material. Isn't that censorship? BTW, you still haven't replied to the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|sections above]], and frankly I'm starting to call your knowledge on this matter in question! Ignorance is not always bliss!

And if you are not willing to address the points made above by various contributors, are you at least willing to read and answer to ''specific suggestions for edits on the talk page''? Or is this a sham to force-feed your view to the readers?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis. Simply put, the entry had denigrated into the ''antithesis'' of the truth-seeking integrity expected of ''Conservapedia''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:41, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
::And what about the current entry? The fact is that E=mc2 is a perfectly valid equation demonstrating the equivalence of matter and energy and it has been thoroughly verified; the energy a piece of matter contains DOES equal its mass times ''c'' squared. This has been repeatedly demonstrated by experiments, which consistently show that the energy released by a reaction is equal within measuring limits to the overall mass lost. It's perfectly reasonable to reject any claim that this demonstrates the truth of moral relativism, atheism or anything else, but to criticise the equation itself as "meaningless" or "liberal claptrap" demonstrates no truth-seeking or integrity. E=mc2 is no more liberal than d=vt or 1+1=2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:53, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The entry explains how nonsensical the formula is as a general principle -- and how it has never been derived as a matter of logic or demonstrated in any general, meaningful manner. Reliance on [[hearsay]] is not a serious alternative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::But it ''isn't'' a general principle. It's a mathematical expression of matter-energy equivalence and it's perfectly valid. Whether or not it's ever been derived as a matter of logic or not is irrelevant because it's been repeatedly demonstrated to be true in the most meaningful manner possible: if you turn matter into energy the amount of energy that comes out is always equal to the lost mass times ''c'' squared. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:59, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true. It doesn't. If someone gains one pound in weight, then it is preposterous for anyone to claim that his energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Yes, it would be absolutely preposterous. In fact his energy would have increased by a number of foot-pounds equal to one pound times ''c''2 in feet per second. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:11, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::To explain that further, his energy would have increased in proportion to his '''weight''', not to the speed of light. If a person who weighed 150lb gained 1lb the energy contained in their mass would increase from 1.4467x1017 ft lb to 1.4564x1017 ft lb. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::The formula '''E=mc2''' does assert that his energy for a fixed gain in weight would increase in proportion to the speed of light squared and, as you say, that is preposterous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::No, his energy for a fixed gain in weight will increase in proportion to his '''weight'''. In my example of a 150lb man gaining 1lb, his new energy content will be 0.6667% higher, '''as will his weight'''. ''c''2 is just a constant. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:52, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::Andy seems to imagine that this energy should be immediately available for sports or doing work around the house, and that we should all be superheroes after having eaten a bar of chocolate. This is, of course, not so. The energy is still locked up in the mass, and it would require nuclear or particle reactions to convert even small parts of it into useful forms of energy. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
''The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis''. Then let's get factual: just answer a [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|few questions]]. Shouldn't be difficult, as you are so insightful. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:26, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Of course this is hearsay - and so it should be. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia - a collection of established information cited from other sources. Hearsay may be inappropriate in court, but it is the lifeblood of an encyclopedia. Anything that is not 'hearsay' is personal opinion or original research, and should be reserved for articles prefixed 'Essay:'. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Then again, heresy tends to be more reputable when it comes from a professional who has studied the issue for years, instead of a man who doesn't understand how food works. [[User:JackFerner|JackFerner]] 12:23, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bare links ==

I noticed that [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=971455&oldid=971446 this edit] removed publication information about the references. Personally, I think this information is useful for two reasons: it helps Conservapedia editors locate the references from other sources if (and when) the links go dead, and it helps who print out Conservapedia articles and wish to look up the references offline. (Of course, I'm not suggesting that the URLs be removed, but this could be in addition to the publication information). Of course, there may be perfectly good reasons for removing the publication information of which I am not aware, but I otherwise think that the publication information should be included again (and I plan to do this once the protection expires). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:17, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:Great point. I retrieved and added many of the citations back. If I missed any then I'd be happy to add them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Niels Bohr ==
Andy, for how often you rail against the Nobel Prize I'm surprised that you would try and use a former winner as an authority to support your misguided assertion. [[User:DennisR|DennisR]] 21:48, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Even a broken clock (like the Nobel Prize) gets it right every once in a while!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

::''. As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '' Who were these physicists? And what said Niels Bohr? I couldn't find anything. In the famous ''Gedankenexperiment'' at Solvay, he accepted ''E=mc²! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:14, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::And of course it ''isn't'' a "general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light." It's a statement of equivalence between energy and matter. Andy seems to be obsessed with the idea that light is involved somehow, and that conflicts with his rather odd idea that the Bible forbids a unified theory. I can only wonder what he'll do if science comes up with a unified theory. Probably deny that too. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:16, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, according to the information I found (Einstein and Bohr at the Solvay-conference), Niels Bohr accepted ''E=mc²''. So, a fact-tag was the only alternative to downright deleting the sentence: it allows you to bring up your sources! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:31, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:I'd have been amazed if he hadn't. Bohr was on the British team for the Manhattan Project, and he wouldn't have been much use at nuclear weapon design if he didn't accept E=mc2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:41, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you have a tendency to make up claims (''As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '', ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula'', and, yes, '' "suddenly" or "at that time" is a nuance of the Greek ἰδού''). And when your bluff is called, you are miffed! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::''Protected "E=mc²": insertion of a fact tag instead of finding and adding a reference.'' That is ridiculous: there is no way of ''finding and adding a reference'' for this made-up "''fact''"!
::It is, however, not very difficult to show that the ''fact'' was invented: just take a look into ''"Foundations of Quantum Physics I''", a book written by Niels Bohr and Jorgen Kalckar. Here Bohr uses what he calls ''Einstein's relation'' without any trepidation! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Presumably, then, the relevant text should be changed to something like "it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, although Niels Bohr later accepted it." and then add the citation. Or you could clarify with something like "the liberal Nobel Prizewinner Niels Bohr".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:18, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::::*There is no reason to think that there was a time at which Niels Bohr didn't accept it!
::::*Is there any source which shows that it was ''widely rejected at the time''? Of course, there was the [[Deutsche Physik]], but does this count?
::::*That said: the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate.
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:44, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::You make some valid points as the online evidence is remarkably scant, even though the disagreement between Bohr and Einstein is well-known. This may be a (rare) example where the internet is less adequate than books. I did add an explanatory footnote and the protection to the page should be expiring soon, if not already.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

*Einstein disagreed with Bohr regarding quantum mechanics. Could you provide a source that Bohr disagreed with Einstein on the theory of relativity? I can't find one!
*As I said, the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate, and I'll reinsert it, as I don't think that there are any sources to back-up your claim.
*Furthermore, I have difficulties to believe that Lord Rutherford had problems with ''E=mc²'', he seemed to appreciate the liquid-drop-model of Gamov, Bohr, et al.
*''a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light'': no one claims that the '''three''' are equivalent!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence ==

I've changed the introduction to something a bit more encyclopaedic. Please don't revert without discussing it first. Thanks. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:28, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Political Pressure ==

''Political pressure has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation''

More likely the fact that similar experiments as the one Cockcroft and Walton are performed by undergraduates in each department teaching physics around the world! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:30, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:No, that would not explain why it "is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of" E=mc2. Even if you think the formula is somehow true, surely you do not deny the political pressure in academia against anyone who might consider questioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 3 April 2012 (EDT)
::It's entirely possible for someone who questions the validity of E=mc2 to pursue a career in science; scientists are encouraged to question the validity ''everything''. However if they ''deny'' the validity of E=mc2 then a scientific career is indeed off-limits to them, for the same reason as it's off-limits to someone who denies that 1+1=2. The fact is, E=mc2. It's been verified time and time again. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:44, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

To talk about political pressure in this context is ridiculous. The conversion of Mass to Energy and vice versa and the validity of E=mc2 has been demonstrated experimentally so often(an early example is given in the main page) that to deny that the equation describes observed nature flies in the face of observation and is thus unscientific. To question its validity without hard experimental evidence or a sound theoretical argument (neither of which has been demonstrated) would simply be a matter of scientific (in)competance.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:16, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:*Aschlafly, if you argue against ''E=mc²'' out of a position of (willful) ignorance, you won't be taken seriously. Unfortunately this is what you are doing, as your (non-) answer [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton|above]] is showing.
:*Criticism of ''E=mc²'' on ideological grounds just doesn't work, as the adherents of the [[Deutsche Physik]] found out in the early 1940s.
:*But obviously, the theory is under constant discussion, as is the concept of energy or mass.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:34, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

== Matter-light relationship ==

Mr. Schafly, I think you are misunderstanding the nature of the <math>E=mc^2</math> relationship. To illustrate, I will give an example.

Suppose we have a map where 1 inch of distance on the map corresponds to 5 miles actual distance. If points A and B are located 2.5 inches apart on the map, we can compute the actual distance between them as follows:
:<math>2.5 \textrm{ map\,in} \cdot \frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}} = 12.5 \textrm{ mi}</math>
In general, if the map distance between two points is <math>d</math> and the actual distance between the points is <math>D</math>, then the following formula is satisfied:
:<math>D = dc</math>
where <math>c</math> is the conversion factor <math>\frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}}</math>. The equation above does not relate distance to five or map distance to quintessence. Rather, it posits a direct relationship (or equivalence) between the map distance and the actual distance, related by a conversion factor.

Likewise, <math>E=mc^2</math> posits a direct relationship between mass and energy. It does not relate mass to the speed of light (or light itself), nor does the equation related light to energy. Rather, <math>c^2</math> is a conversion factor, just like the <math>c</math> was in our equation for computing actual distances from map distances. I hope this helps explain why some editors have concern with your statement of the relationship posited by <math>E=mc^2</math>. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:19, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:But Energy and mass have known meanings in other contexts, unlike the distances (in inches) on the map page in your example. If Energy or mass were being redefined by E=mc2, then I think your analogy would work. But people are not defending E=mc2 by saying it entails a redefinition of Energy or mass.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::The equation postulates how mass and energy can be interchanged while conserving the total amount of mass energy. For example, according to the equation, a nuclear reaction that causes 1.0 kg of mass to be lost will produce 9.0 x 1016 J energy. The amount of energy produced ''by the loss of mass'' is proportional to the mass lost. It is the same sort of equivalence between the number of pounds you get at a currency exchange and the number of dollars you pay (which, come to think of it, is probably an even better analogy). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:13, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::(inserted reply here) E=mc2 claims more than the relation between mass and energy is linear (which is itself implausible). It also claims that the proportional factor is precisely equal to the speed of light squared. Restating the meaning of the equation in plain terms demonstrates how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Energy and mass have known meanings in THIS context! The equation tells us how much energy will be liberated by losing a set amount of mass, or how much energy (for example hard gamma rays) is required to create a set amount of mass. It is a valid equation. It doesn't matter ''what'' objections anyone has to it based on principle or logic; it's been tested and it's correct. This is getting pretty frustrating. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:56, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

Perhaps we should have two articles [[E=mc² (science)]] and [[E=mc² (new age)]]: every sentence Aschlafly writes on this subjects shows that he knows so very little about the science involved - and has no interest to get informed any further. Instead his methods reminds me of homeopaths and other quacks advertising their craft by misrepresenting sources, cherry-picking evidence and generally repeating false statements over and over again despite of better knowledge. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:05, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

===A question===

Mr Schlafly, you've said that this equation "purports" to describe the equivalence of matter and energy. The fact is, it's been repeatedly tested and it ''does'' describe the equivalence of matter and energy. However I get the feeling that there's some misunderstanding here. What, exactly, is your objection to E=mc2? Do you think it's incorrect - in which case go check the experimental data - or do you think it's being used to advance some sort of political agenda? I think we've reached a deadlock here and to make any progress on improving the article it would be helpful to know what you think is wrong with the equation. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:02, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
:The problem is that it is a self-sustaining myth presented as "fact" by the same self-serving scientific establishment who have built an tautological edifice on nothing. It is designed to subtly indoctrinate children into the world of moral, social and scientific relativity by suggesting that "everything is relative".--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 17:03, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:The equation is nonsensical. Mass has nothing to do with the speed of light, and cannot be equated to energy simply by multiplying it twice by the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::Andy, how do you explain the result of the Cockcroft- Walton experiment? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 01:42, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::A very good question! Aschlafly, you could try to answer it by responding to [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|this section above]]! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bohr disagreed with Einstein's 1905 paper ==

Aschlafly, do you have any source for this claim? It seems to be factual incorrect. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:27, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

I looked into it and for me it is an ''ad-hoc'' fabrication to make a point - even the time-line doesn't work out: a '''''trustworthy''''' encyclopedia shouldn't work this way! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:58, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Some questions ==

I still don't understand why (a) Andy Schlafly doesn't know the difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass and (b) he seems obsessed over the speed of light in the equation. The m in the equation is inertial mass! As others have stated, when talking about gravitational mass, you need to consider general relativity.What E=mc^2 says is that mass is just a form of energy. It says nothing about the unification of electromagnetism and gravity (it doesn't even say anything about gravity!). Moreover, do you, Andy Schlafly, understand that electromagnetism is not the only theory that has c as a special value? All massless particles travel at the speed of light. In GR, gravity travels at the speed of light.

If you deny it, how do you account for changes in mass in nuclear reactions? How do you account for electron-positron annihilation as well as dozens of other examples of reactions that don't conserve mass in particle physics?

And by the way, as has been pointed out, if you deny special relativity, you have to reject Maxwell's equations. Are they a liberal conspiracy as well? --[[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:"Usually when we speak of an object's mass we do not distinguish whether we are referring to its inertial mass or its gravitational mass. This is because the quantity of matter present in an object, i.e., its mass, does not depend on the method by which it is measured." [http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=Dynamics_InertialGravitationalMass%2525252Exml] Indeed, no measurement has ever detected a difference between the two.

:As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc2.

:Your third point is often repeated by Relativists but overlooks that Maxwell's equations were developed and demonstrated decades before the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Maxwell's equations survived just fine for years without anyone claiming that somehow E=mc2. Indeed, an assertion that people "have to reject Maxwell's equations" based on relativity suggests a mathematical approach to physics, rather than an observational one. Are you aware of how Eddington claimed that a physical constant "must" have a certain value due to some mathematical rationale? (He was wrong, of course.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Your first point: It's good that we all agree that inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing. (This is the fundamental hypothesis of general relativity, by the way.) But the term "mass" always means "inertial mass". Gravity never appears anywhere in special relativity. Even if Newton's constant of universal gravitation ("G") were zero, that is, we lived in a hypothetical universe in which there is no gravity, special relativity, the Lorentz transform, and E=mc^2 would still be true. There should be no mention of gravity anywhere in the article. But the second sentence of the article refers to "mass (i.e., gravity)". Please take that out. I would do it myself, but I'd get it wrong, since I don't know what point you were trying to make.

::Your second point: That chemical reactions that cause energy to be released result in a reduction of the final mass most certainly '''''is''''' astounding. No one had ever seen this, or suspected it, before E=mc^2, and it is doubtful that anyone has seen it to this day, since the effect is so small for chemical reactions. The phenomenon is known only because we know that E=mc^2 is true.

::Your third point: Yes, Maxwell's equations were developed decades before relativity, and survived just fine before anyone suspected that E=mc^2. Your claimed "assertion that people 'have to reject Maxwell's equations' based on relativity" is not made by anyone. It's the ''denial'' of relativity that would necessitate a denial of Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations imply relativity, though Maxwell didn't realize it. In fact, it was an analysis of Maxwell's equations, not the Michelson-Morley experiment, that led to relativity. If we lived in a hypothetical universe in which there were no electric or magnetic forces, relativity would still be true.

::[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 23:36, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:::You didn't respond to my point about [[Arthur Eddington]], who was the biggest promoter of the [[Theory of Relativity]] in the English world.
::::The reason is that has nothing to do with E=mc^2. Your point about Eddington was presumably referring to the alpha=1/137 business, right? I am aware of that. It was in the late 1930's. Would you like me to write an article about it? I'd be glad to do so. Eddington's promotion of relativity in England was in the 1920's, after the eclipse (his book was in 1923), and was about ''general'' relativity. E=mc^2 is in ''special'' relativity, and was widely accepted by then. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Simply put, the [[Theory of Relativity]] is a mathematical theory (which, by the way, is taught in math departments in some universities); this mathematical theory has never been based on meaningful physical observations. Any statement that someone must reject Maxwell's equations if he rejects the [[Theory of Relativity]] shows how the mathematical cart can be incorrectly placed before the physical horse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:21, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Of course it's been based on meaningful physical observations. To be more precise, it's based on repeated experiments where the relation between the observed mass loss and the observed energy release is E=mc2. I really don't know what your problem is, but to challenge the validity of something as thoroughly confirmed as E=mc2 is not going to get you anywhere. The equation is valid. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 03:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::My comments were aimed at people who accept that both mathematical theory and experimental observations have a role to play, and that they complement each other. There is no cart and no horse. Relativity, like Newtonian mechanics, involves both elegant mathematics and observation, and the observations buttress the theory very well. It's possible for people to get carried away with the mathematics, as Eddington did with the 137 business, but that hasn't happened with relativity. And yes, if you don't accept relativity, you can't make Maxwell's equations work correctly, though Maxwell didn't realize that at the time. It was only later that Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein fixed that. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

''As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc². ''
Aschlafy, it may not come as a surprise, but you are wrong again:
*The mass of the products of a chemical reaction is nearly equal to the mass of the reagents, because the energy which is involved is so much less than that of a nuclear fusion or fission.
*A kilogram of [[TNT]] will release 4.484 MJ of energy, if you break this down for a single molecule, you see that less than 10 eV are released per molecule in the explosion. Compare this with the 17,200,000 eV per nucleus in the experiment of Corckcroft and Walton!
*In fact, if you let the products of the explosion cool down, the equivalent of this energy will be missing - but it is such a small amount that it is hard to detect it. But nevertheless, E=mc² could be observed.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:40, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

User:JudyJ

2012-04-07T22:01:43Z

JudyJ: Created page with "I'm a physics student at a large state university."

I'm a physics student at a large state university.

Talk:E=mc²

2012-04-07T22:00:00Z

JudyJ: /* Some questions */ Reply about Eddington and getting carried away with mathematics.

==I'm Finding This a Little Hard to Understand==
First off, E = mc2 describing a relationship between energy and matter is only one corollary. It is also part of a well known problem in chemistry... Or is isotopic mass not less than the sum of it's parts? The equation itself HAS been derived from the Theory of Relativity, and is a direct consequence of the energy momentum four vector for an object with 0-momentum. The quote you provide from the paper states that the theory is not enough for a rigorous PROOF, but it never tries to deny the derivability of the equation. Derivation and proof are two entirely different things.

==This Article Could Use Sources or Better Explanation==
Wow. Classic Andy. Unsourced statements supposedly contradicting well-established theories of physics. No real proof other than "the Bible says it's not true," even though this is an extremely uncommon interpretation Genesis. --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 01:06, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's a start for now, and will expand over time. That's how wikis work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Doesn't it relate energy to mass? The speed of light is just a constant here. [[User:IanR|IanR]] 02:22, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Humbug ==

The phrase ''meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement '' (as used in the article) fits the first paragraph to a t.

Aschlafly, please try to refute the explanation of the experiments of John Cockroft and Ernest Walton, which is accepted generally under physicists. And try to give some sources - or if not, some of your own calculations!

If not, just erase the first section.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:23, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Nobel Lecture ==

I took out the link to the Nobel lecture, it can be found in the short summary. But be aware that John Cockroft is using the dreaded formula with ease (but without stating so explicitly - why should he, it's already generally accepted!) An astute reader, who not only searches for the formula finds e.g., the formulation:

:'''This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units.'''

Indeed, these are the ≈ 17MeV!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

==Irrelevant claims==
Are these claims of so called "experimental verification" valid or useful? If you look at enough so-called science you can find people claiming anything. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 12:59, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:''you can find people claiming anything'' Indeed - and that's why there is a difference between the unsubstantiated claims in the first section, and the actual experiments in the following paragraphs. If you have a good explanation of the outcome of these experiments (some math would be nice), feel free to add your personal ''claim''.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:03, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Why do you feel that I need to do that? I understand that you may wish to believe relativity is true, but that is no reason to impose your personal beliefs on others.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:40, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::Thinking that all claims have the same validity seems not a very conservative position. I don't expect you to accept my personal beliefs, but there is a tendency in physics that the claims which are backed up by those willing to do the experiments and the maths have a greater following than random insights. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:47, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::I don't understand why your personal beliefs are even included in the article.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:58, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::*Because they are bolstered by experiments...
:::::*...and they aren't just my beliefs - in fact it will be very hard to find a physicist who doesn't share them. And that's something which shouldn't be easy to ignore in an article on a physical subject.
:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If science is your religion then you will find scientists who share your views. I still don't see why they should be hosted here. The introduction makes the Biblical position clear.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:07, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Religion is my religion, science is my hobby. And just because there is one single interpretation of a few verses of Genesis out there which you think to contradict the experiments of the physicists doesn't shatter my religious beliefs nor my trust in physics. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
← Now you have intrigued me: what's your definition of pseudoscience? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Pssst! DavidEdwards! You're trying waaaaay too hard. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:Too hard about what?
:As far as the pseudoscience question is concerned - "science" which is used to promote a worldview which has no basis in moral reality is pseudoscience. Science which is designed to suggest that morality is relative clearly falls into this category.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

==Question==
This snipet of sentence appears in the introduction: "...''a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" Let's compare that to the entire sentence it was lifted from: "'''''Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally,''' a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" One can't help but notice that the part of the sentence that states that the theory has been observed to be valid in real world experimentation, has been surgically removed. Why is this? Is it because it stands in contradiction to the claim the lead author of this article is trying to promulgate? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the [[hearsay]] that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR? Liberal conspiracy? Also, do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:24, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the [[Theory of Relativity]] may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Yes. We already know the Theory of Relativity is an incomplete model of our universe. So yes, the theory may be "false", but the one that takes it's place will most likely have many of the same properties. Secondly, would I approve of a "well-written paper that criticized it"? I don't know what that means. I'm not a physicist, so I don't see what difference my "approval" of said paper would make. Now that I've been so kind as to answer your questions, would you return the courtesy and answer the ones I posted above? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 22:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::The qualifications on your answer render it almost meaningless. I'm not asking whether your approval of a paper would make a difference, or your opinion about whether you think the replacement of the [[Theory of Relativity]] will "most likely" be another theory of relativity. The question was simple and straightforward, referring to a paper critical of the theory of relativity without any appeasement to those who insist on believing in it. An unqualified answer is requested.

:::::Also, did you ever answer my simple question on [[Talk:Main Page]] about how much time you've spent reading the [[Bible]] this month?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Come off it Schlafly. This article is not about my Bible reading, is it? No. Does my opinion of the publishing criteria of physics academia have any bearing on the assertions you are trying make? No. Again: Do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 23:11, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::Andy, do you accept the possibility that the Theory of Relativity may be correct, and would you approve a well-written paper or book that supported it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Some points ==

*''Misplaced claims of experimental verification'': if you want to put on the disclaimer ''misplaced'', please explain the results of the experiments in another way.
*''Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR?'' But they do: remember the neutrino thing? Or the papers of H. Ives? In fact the first event has shown that especially the publication of experiments (seemingly) violating currently accepted theories gets attention!
*Taking only the second half of ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."'' makes you looking deceptive. Take the whole sentence and try to explain the motivation of the first half. Otherwise anyone who looks the quote up will suspect an ulterior motive!
*The whole first section is a train wreck.
*''[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of [[gravity]].'' Only when you accept the general theory of relativity it is, otherwise inertial mass and gravitational mass are quite different animals.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:46, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::I have attempted to clarify the last point on the [[Mass]] page, and also removed the fact template from the first paragraph, since the explanation is given later on. As it stood, the "citation needed" banners following important points tended to undercut the authority of the article.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:29, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The problem is not a confusion of weight and mass, but the conflation of gravitational and inertial mass. In the classical theory, there is no reason why both should be the same, it's just an experimental fact.
::So, I'm sorry, your new entry didn't help.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::But they always are the same, aren't they? I don't see why knowing or not knowing the reason (yet) has any bearing on the question.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:43, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly writes: ''Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.''
::::E=mc² isn't about gravity, to invoke it here is a deflection. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::: OK. But bear in mind that this page clearly exists to provide a counterweight to certain liberal views. To do that, clarity of message is needed, and a "citation needed" banner has a deflating effect on the strength of that clarity. So perhaps you could suggest a wording that might be acceptable without the "citation needed" bit?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman ==

Try to explain a complicated formula in 1-2min, then have a single sentence of this soundbit taken out. You can bet that this may sound meaningless. That's no fault of the formula. I'll change the title back. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The quotes illustrate how difficult it is to explain the concept to a layman. Take a look [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/expe-text.html here], where you can find the quotes in context. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:16, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The quotes were solicited to describe the meaning of the equation to laymen, not to illustrate how difficult that is. The difficulty arises from the meaningless nature of the equation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Actually the meaning of the equation is very clear: the total energy contained in matter is its mass multiplied by the speed of light in a vaccum squared. Experiment after experiment, and nuclear reactor after nuclear reactor, has clearly demonstrated that the total energy released by a reaction is the lost mass multiplied by c2. Therefore whether the theories of relativity are true or not, E=mc2 is true. Equally, even if classical Newtonian mechanics was false, the kinetic energy of a moving mass would still be accurately described by Ek=1/2mv2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:34, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Indeed. Internet quotes are really not very useful. A skilled researcher can always find someone saying something to justify their position however bizarre or immoral. This is a typical weakness (and response!) of those who have no real moral or religious basis for their convictions. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 19:04, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::These quotes are absolutely meaningless. It looks like you took random sentences from the PBS article and then inserted them into the article as if they had any real significance. This is made even more moot when you consider the fact that the article claims that "Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc²" and then you go on to quote three. Not to mention, most of the quotes aren't actually explaining what the equation means - a basic understanding of algebra and what the symbols mean is sufficient to understand its basic meaning - but rather what it entails, its implications. Tim Halpin-Healy's quote I think is better than taking some random sentences and then implying that they mean that physicists don't know what E=mc² means. --[[User:Tyg13|Tyg13]] 15:58, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::The problem is that '''E=m2does not meaning anythimg that makes sense. Anyone is welcome to try to explain it here. Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, it doesn't. It causes your energy to increase by a number of foot-pounds equal to '''one pound''' times the speed of light squared. I've explained this to you already and it isn't difficult. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::The equation is essentially just a conversion ratio, its not difficult to understand that units of energy (Whether it is Joules, pound-foot, or erg) look essentially like a velocity squared times a mass (in SI units - kg m^2/s^2) this is not relativity or theory dependent, its the definition of Energy. The Special Relativistic analysis that results in the basic equation just determines that the conversion ratio is precisely that universal constant '''c''' in whatever units are convenient. There is no blindingly obvious or intuitive reason why this SHOULD be the case (conceivably the conversion ratio could have any number of complicated dimensionless constants in front), but basic mathematical logic allows us to derive this simple relationship from the postulates of Special Relativity. That being said, its a rather useless equation on everyday scales. In reality, after consuming a pound of cake your body begins to break down the chemical bonds in the sugars/fats/proteins to extract usable energy, about 1500 food calories worth of it. If you had a precise enough scale and could somehow keep a human in a hermetically sealed bag that prevents the escape of any moisture/gas etc. you would be able to measure that after consuming and digesting the cake your bodyweight would not be +1 lb, but about 70 pg (picograms - 10^-12 grams) less, so if you weighed 150.0lb and ate a pound of cake (total of 151lb), after digestion you would actually weigh 70pg less than 151lb. It is important to note that this "mass" isn't "lost" it is merely the "weight" of the energy stored in the chemical bonds, in other words in a pound of cake there is (1lb - 70pg) of stuff and 70pg worth of "chemical energy" with a conversion ratio of c^2. If you had some magic machine that could convert mass to energy at 100% efficiency the detonation of a body sized bomb would release 20 times more energy than the largest nuclear weapon detonated by man kind, however due to the nature of nuclear transitions/processes such a 100% conversion rate is not possibe . On the scale of nuclear bonds (order of MeV) this difference becomes conceivably measurable, but even so, in the detonation of a hiroshima sized nuclear weapon, the loss of mass due to the nuclear fission is approximately 500mg, the rest of the nuclear material is dispersed as fallout, considering that there was ~60kg of nuclear material in the weapon, this corresponds to an energy "efficiency" ~1%, which is typical of fission devices. In a 100MT nuclear bomb this is conceivably larger at nearly 5kg, and the fusion type weapon that can achieve this high yields has considerably higher mass-energy conversion efficiency at around ~20% [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:53, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: Another way of thinking about is this. Consider your typical AA batery, it is not a difficult stretch of the mind to understand that this battery stores electrical energy, approximately 2Ampere-hours at 1.5v which is approximately 5000J worth of STORED electical energy. Now, CONSUMING this battery does not cause your kinetic energy to increase by 5000J the same way that consuming a pound of cake does not cause your kinetic energy to increase by 1lb*c^2, you are still limited by your ability to convert between different energy sources. So A RC car would be able to use that battery to move around for several hours, YOU on the other hand will most likely just pass the battery through your body and the basic chemicals that are storing this electric energy will come out unaltered. The same way that a pound of cake can sustain you for a day, but try stuffing it into the battery compartment of your RC car and it won't move an inch. "Mass-energy" works much the same way, sure consuming a pound of cake increases your "rest energy" or by an enormous amount, but in reality there is no way to convert mass directly to energy so its much the same as swallowing a battery or stuffing cake into the RC car. [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 17:05, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:At any rate, eating a pound of cake, is not nuclear physics, it is chemistry, where your cells digest and utilize the sugars within. Protiens are also converted into sugar.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 18:28, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

== Aschlafly, could you give us... ==

... your interpretation of the results of the experiment by Cockroft and Walton? Cockroft describes in his Nobel Lecture how the kinetic energy of the alpha-particles could be provided by ''diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.'' (p. 170). Please take into account that this isn't about energy in form of electromagnetic waves!

If you don't address the results of the actual experiments, all your claims are just meaningless verbiage.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:Cockcroft (please spell his name correctly) does not even cite E=mc2 in his Nobel lecture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::You don't think that it is ''implied'' by the quote that AugustO provided? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::No, I don't. E=mc2 is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability. The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

From the lecture: ''It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.''

Aschlafly, your ignorance is showing:
17.2 MeV /c² = 1.602*10-19kg m²/s² *17.2 *109/(3*108 m/s)² = 3.0616 * 10-29kg = 0.0184 amu

In fact as this is such a ''general truth of universal applicability'', J. Cockroft could take it for granted that his scientifically literate audience would be able to make this calculation.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::One question, though: We have four protons and four neutrons on the left hand side of the equation, and four protons and four neutrons on the right hand side. So why the difference in mass?
:::Also, forgive my ignorance, but why is the 'energy' measured in volts? Volts are not a measure of energy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

*Bainbridge measured the mass of 7Li directly, using mass spectrometry.
*Indeed, three protons and four neutrons weight less than a 7Li - kernel
*Energy is measured in this cases in [[Electron-Volts]]. One electron volt is the energy of an electron which passed through a potential of 1 Volt.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:54, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, please contribute something substantive instead of talking up a storm. Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::James Wilson, please don't interfere in interesting and substantive discussions. Thank you! [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 12:12, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::"Baobab", please state what substance is coming out of this conversation. You have had a history of engaging in hefty talk. Please start contributing. I have had some great insights contributing in a few articles today and will continue to do so. Many thanks for your future contributions.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:47, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::"James Wilson", AugustO is clarifying things and giving us some great insights, as CPalmer's latest reply shows. Discussions will often lead to better articles, which is why your interference was totally uncalled for. I guess your only motive was to defend Mr. Schlafly, but he can take care of himself and really doesn't need your help. Regards, [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 13:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::Thanks, AugustO. Relativity or no relativity, I am learning a lot from this discussion.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:00, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::You are posing excellent questions! Indeed it should be of interest for Aschlafly, too:
:::'''Aschlafly, two protons (1.0073amu) and two neutrons (1.0087amu) have a combined mass of 4.0320 amu. An alpha-particle - existing from two protons and two neutrons - has a mass of 4.0015 amu. How do you explain this diminution of mass?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:42, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::What real evidence do you have that these particles even exist? No doubt you've read it in a book or some "qualified person" has said it is true. In reality you accept these things on the word of somebody else - in other words your belief in the existence of these particles is a matter of scientific faith in something which you have no personal knowledge. There is obviously no problem with believing things on faith, but please don't pretend it's "true because science says it's true". Christians get their real truth from a higher authority.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::I find Mr O's position to be rather odd. He insists that Mr Schlafly - and only Mr Schlafly answers his questions. Yet at the same time Mr O steadfastly ignores comments specifically directed at him.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 16:11, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If you're referring to your question about how he knows that protons and neutrons really exist, I suspect he thought it wasn't worth answering. I tend to agree. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:15, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

@DavidEdwards: Sorry, [[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]], I didn't want to ignore you. I hadn't caught up after the databank mishap, I'm afraid.
So, to answer your questions: At school, we performed a couple experiments -there were teltron tubes, the Millikan the photo-electric effect, the Millikan Oil Drop experiment, de Broglie's electron diffraction experiments, etc. These experiments confirmed my persuasion that the electrons, protons and neutrons are physically real entities. The proposed theories explained these effects - and sitting in front of a computer, I'm surprised that you aren't willing to accept the theories behind semi-conductors. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:25, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
@SamCoulter: There is some truth in your statement, too: it's like asking a priest: ''let's talk about your religion without mentioning Jesus''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:28, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Restoration ==

I could restore this page to the last version which I had edited. I don't know whether there were more entries. This should help to restore the article: perhaps one positive effect could be that Aschlafly marvels about the questions in the previous section for a while and rethinks his position! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:36, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Instead of the source - tag ==

*''E=mc² is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate all matter to light.''
It relates matter to energy, the square of the speed of light is just the conversation factor
*''In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism).''
It isn't about gravitational mass, but about inertial mass. To identify both means to invoke the General Theory of Relativity
* ''Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap. ''
How so? It works!
* ''Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.''
So, physicists should just give up looking for it? I dare to say that there are many Christian physicists - they may just not follow your special interpretation of Genesis!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:29, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

== A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton ==

I'd appreciate an answer by Aschlafly (and him alone) to the following questions:

'''1.''' Do you accept that the mass of the Lithium-kernel (7Li), of alpha-particles (4He) and of protons (1H) can be measured fairly accurately, as these are charged particles?

'''2.''' Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockroft and Walton, i.e.
:::{|
!particle
!mass
|-
|1H||1.0072 amu
|-
|4He||4.0011 amu
|-
|7Li||7.0130 amu
|}
If not, which values do you think to be right?

'''3.''' Do you agree that before the reaction the mass of the particles involved was 8.0202 amu?

'''4.''' Do you agree that after the reaction the mass of the particles involved is 8.00220 amu?

'''5.''' Do you agree that there is a mass decrease of 0.0180 amu?

'''6.''' Before the experiment, the Li was at rest and the proton had a kinetic energy of less than 1MeV. Do you accept these values?

'''7.''' After the experiment, a pair of alpha-particles was observed, both having an kinetic energy of 8.6MeV. Do you think that this value is correct?

'''8.''' Can you tell me where the mass went? Can you tell me where the energy came from?

'''9.''' If your answer to question 8. is ''no'' in both accounts, than my answer is that there is a theory which explains the conversion of mass to energy, even if you don't like it!

As this theory works for this experiment, and for all the other fissions and fusions, it isn't liberal claptrap, but a meaningful theory. And you can't blame physicists for using it! Of course, you can blame journalist to abuse the formula - but this isn't the result of ''liberal physics'', but of ''bad reporting'', as an abuse of the dictum ''1+1=2'' doesn't reflect badly on number-theorists, but only on the person misattributing it.

Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:04, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that '''''E=mc2'''''. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, you haven't answered any of the questions above! Instead you are talking about something completely different:
*We are not talking about a ''chemical'' reaction! You should know the difference.
*Cockroft claims that the energy comes from the loss of mass - and he calculates it according to ''E=mc²''. Please read (and understand!) his lecture.
*Please give a list of a few (or at least a single) experiment which contradicts the formula. This should be easy, as you stated that ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula''. Oh, wait, you made that up...
*Please answer the questions 1 to 9: all the question are covered in Cockroft's lecture, so I'd be interested in your explanation!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:32, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, if you cannot even spell Cockcroft's name properly, how can Andy take anything you say seriously? --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 22:03, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

== Move ==

Could you please move this article to [[Essay:E=mc²]]? Then I could ignore all the misleading and outright wrong statements in the first section! Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:57, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Experimental Facts ==

Aschlafly, on the one hand side, you state that ''no experiment distinguishes between "gravitational" and "inertial" mass'' - and that seems good enough for you. On the other hand side, you have a problem with the statement that E=mc² ''continues to be affirmed experimentally''. Do you spot the inconsistency? Indeed, I could write: ''the equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass has never been mathematically derived from first principles in classical mechanics, indeed, a rigorous proof of this equivalence is probably beyond the purview of classical theory.''

BTW, omitting the first part of the sentence ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally..."'' makes you look very disingenuous (even if you have good motives) to anyone who looks up the link to the abstract!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:07, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance. 99% of people know what mass is, and it's directly related to weight, not electrostatic energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:38, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::And the remaining percent are the physicists which draw such distinctions with good reason! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]]
:::Even more confusing is that the article states mass is a measure of inertia. Inertia is resistance to acceleration, and that has nothing to do with gravity at all. The article as it stands is simply inaccurate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:51, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly: ''....may not even have any justification in the paper''
::::Aschlafly, havn't you read the paper? Here is a part of the conclusion:
:::::''Einstein produced about 18 virtuoso derivations and demonstrations all aimed at establishing the mass-energy principle. We have shown that although each of them gave evidence for the applicability of E0 = mc² to a particular set of circumstances, no one derivation, or collection of them taken together, succeeded in providing a definitive proof of its complete generality. That should not be surprising because the same situation occurs, for example, with F = ma, which is a different kind of relation than E0 = mc². Even so, 300 years of successful theoretical work have not proven the correctness of F = ma. Indeed, relativity showed that this expression, one of the bedrocks of classical mechanics, holds only approximately.
::::Here is another excerpt, on mass, electromagnetism etc:
:::::''In the 19th century, a number of European physicists, including the leading theoretician of the time, Hendrik Lorentz, were working to establish that mass was, in whole or in part, electromagnetic. There were primarily two competing theories, one by Lorentz, the other by Max Abraham. Both agreed that depending on the relative direction of its velocity and acceleration, an “electron” a generic charged particle moving through the aether could manifest both transverse and longitudinal speed-dependent mass components. There was even experimental evidence that seemed to confirm as much. Electromagnetic theory was then at the center of physics.''
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:56, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::(May I add that I think one shouldn't make such fundamental statements as ''E=mc² has no meaning'', if one only skims a few abstracts! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]])

Aschlafly, maybe you have not the time (or the access) to read the actual papers - as you should when drawing conclusions. But perhaps you can take a look at [http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Basic.html Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's ABC of Nuclear Science] to refresh the basics?Even there, they use ''Einstein's famous equation...''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:44, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== ...purports to relate all matter to light ==

When I write that for iron I get:
::V [cm³] * 7.874 g/cm³ = M [g]
I don't relate the mass to 7.8474, but to the volume. So, similarly Einstein's equations says that mass is proportional to energy, not light. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:38, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:But the constant applied in this case is the (square of the) speed of light! Are you saying that that is a coincidence? If so, why not just say "E=mc"?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:57, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::no, of course not, but we could write, e.g., Eε0 = m/μ0: the relationship is given between mass and energy... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::But the relationship itself is somehow connected to light. Or maybe, the relationship is connected with some third factor that also determines the speed of light.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:58, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::::yes, but the c² is a constant. Does the equation E/c²=m relate all energy to light? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:18, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::Yes - the equation in any form relates mass, energy, and the speed of light. I think the article doesn't emphasise the light-energy relationship because it's the mass-energy relationship that appears absurd once the theory of relativity is discounted.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:22, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Even if you discount the theory of relativity, the experimental facts remain: in experiments where mass is deleted or created, this happens with the release or absorption of energy. And this energy is given by ≈8.99*1016m²/s² times the mass... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:31, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== Misleading footnote ==

::(Your footnote about the units is bogus. SI units are not arbitrary, since eg Joules can be derived from other SI units including kilograms, metres and seconds. Therefore, the relationship to light ''is'' (purported to be) a natural one.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:00, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Which footnote about units? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Ah, I see, no, not ''my'' footnote. The text was inserted by [[User:GregG/RSS_6#Mon.2C_26_Mar_2012_18:05:11_GMT_.28edit_by_MihailD.29_2|MihailD]], and obviously the equation holds in other systems, too. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:10, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

I took out the main part of the footnote: it should be obvious that in a physical equation only compatible physical units can be used, and that otherwise conversion factors have to be introduced. But there is no problem, if we have c in feet/h, m in pounds, and E in pound*feet²/h²
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:30, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:I see - my apologies. I thought you had added the footnote in order to try and make the point above. I agree that in any sensible unit system the equation will work (assuming the theory is right of course).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:32, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:Looks like [[User:MihailD|MihailD]] received a lifetime block for this and related edits, so he'll be unable to explain or justify his comments. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:58, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::That's a pity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== We will, we will, we will ==

Generally I enjoy the great contribution of SamHB. My only rub: the ''royal we'' - ''we will dispel'', ''we will show'', ''we don't do''. I don't think that this is the best way to phrase an encyclopedic article, and I'd like to see alternatives. For the moments, I just commented out some of the occurrences which in my opinion spoiled the fun of reading the article....

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:It is a bit chatty. The first one could be rephrased "This article sets out to...". I have reworded two of the others, and the rest might possibly be omitted entirely.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:44, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== I don't understand... ==

Why you guys destroyed a wonderful original piece of work by Mr. Schlafly. There are hundreds of books and web sites that explain relativity, why did you feel the need to reproduce that content here? --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:18, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:Perhaps because they are right and he is wrong? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you still haven't answered my [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|reasonable questions abouts this subject]]. To be ignorant on a subject isn't that big a deal, but to willfully stay ignorant while lecturing about it, that is! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:32, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

BTW, the ''wonderful original piece of work'' was not destroyed - you find it embedded in the text. A blanket reversion of the work of a couple of editors should be a no-no, please give reasons for reverting at least for each paragraph! And answer the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|questions!]] [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:42, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Protection of the Article ==

Stated reason: ''(with reluctance, and repeated reversions; for now, post specific suggestions for edits on the talk page)''

Aschlafly, this must be one of these definitions of irony, as I asked for specific reasons for your deletions of material. Isn't that censorship? BTW, you still haven't replied to the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|sections above]], and frankly I'm starting to call your knowledge on this matter in question! Ignorance is not always bliss!

And if you are not willing to address the points made above by various contributors, are you at least willing to read and answer to ''specific suggestions for edits on the talk page''? Or is this a sham to force-feed your view to the readers?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis. Simply put, the entry had denigrated into the ''antithesis'' of the truth-seeking integrity expected of ''Conservapedia''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:41, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
::And what about the current entry? The fact is that E=mc2 is a perfectly valid equation demonstrating the equivalence of matter and energy and it has been thoroughly verified; the energy a piece of matter contains DOES equal its mass times ''c'' squared. This has been repeatedly demonstrated by experiments, which consistently show that the energy released by a reaction is equal within measuring limits to the overall mass lost. It's perfectly reasonable to reject any claim that this demonstrates the truth of moral relativism, atheism or anything else, but to criticise the equation itself as "meaningless" or "liberal claptrap" demonstrates no truth-seeking or integrity. E=mc2 is no more liberal than d=vt or 1+1=2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:53, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The entry explains how nonsensical the formula is as a general principle -- and how it has never been derived as a matter of logic or demonstrated in any general, meaningful manner. Reliance on [[hearsay]] is not a serious alternative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::But it ''isn't'' a general principle. It's a mathematical expression of matter-energy equivalence and it's perfectly valid. Whether or not it's ever been derived as a matter of logic or not is irrelevant because it's been repeatedly demonstrated to be true in the most meaningful manner possible: if you turn matter into energy the amount of energy that comes out is always equal to the lost mass times ''c'' squared. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:59, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true. It doesn't. If someone gains one pound in weight, then it is preposterous for anyone to claim that his energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Yes, it would be absolutely preposterous. In fact his energy would have increased by a number of foot-pounds equal to one pound times ''c''2 in feet per second. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:11, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::To explain that further, his energy would have increased in proportion to his '''weight''', not to the speed of light. If a person who weighed 150lb gained 1lb the energy contained in their mass would increase from 1.4467x1017 ft lb to 1.4564x1017 ft lb. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::The formula '''E=mc2''' does assert that his energy for a fixed gain in weight would increase in proportion to the speed of light squared and, as you say, that is preposterous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::No, his energy for a fixed gain in weight will increase in proportion to his '''weight'''. In my example of a 150lb man gaining 1lb, his new energy content will be 0.6667% higher, '''as will his weight'''. ''c''2 is just a constant. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:52, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::Andy seems to imagine that this energy should be immediately available for sports or doing work around the house, and that we should all be superheroes after having eaten a bar of chocolate. This is, of course, not so. The energy is still locked up in the mass, and it would require nuclear or particle reactions to convert even small parts of it into useful forms of energy. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
''The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis''. Then let's get factual: just answer a [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|few questions]]. Shouldn't be difficult, as you are so insightful. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:26, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Of course this is hearsay - and so it should be. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia - a collection of established information cited from other sources. Hearsay may be inappropriate in court, but it is the lifeblood of an encyclopedia. Anything that is not 'hearsay' is personal opinion or original research, and should be reserved for articles prefixed 'Essay:'. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Then again, heresy tends to be more reputable when it comes from a professional who has studied the issue for years, instead of a man who doesn't understand how food works. [[User:JackFerner|JackFerner]] 12:23, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bare links ==

I noticed that [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=971455&oldid=971446 this edit] removed publication information about the references. Personally, I think this information is useful for two reasons: it helps Conservapedia editors locate the references from other sources if (and when) the links go dead, and it helps who print out Conservapedia articles and wish to look up the references offline. (Of course, I'm not suggesting that the URLs be removed, but this could be in addition to the publication information). Of course, there may be perfectly good reasons for removing the publication information of which I am not aware, but I otherwise think that the publication information should be included again (and I plan to do this once the protection expires). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:17, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:Great point. I retrieved and added many of the citations back. If I missed any then I'd be happy to add them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Niels Bohr ==
Andy, for how often you rail against the Nobel Prize I'm surprised that you would try and use a former winner as an authority to support your misguided assertion. [[User:DennisR|DennisR]] 21:48, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Even a broken clock (like the Nobel Prize) gets it right every once in a while!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

::''. As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '' Who were these physicists? And what said Niels Bohr? I couldn't find anything. In the famous ''Gedankenexperiment'' at Solvay, he accepted ''E=mc²! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:14, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::And of course it ''isn't'' a "general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light." It's a statement of equivalence between energy and matter. Andy seems to be obsessed with the idea that light is involved somehow, and that conflicts with his rather odd idea that the Bible forbids a unified theory. I can only wonder what he'll do if science comes up with a unified theory. Probably deny that too. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:16, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, according to the information I found (Einstein and Bohr at the Solvay-conference), Niels Bohr accepted ''E=mc²''. So, a fact-tag was the only alternative to downright deleting the sentence: it allows you to bring up your sources! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:31, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:I'd have been amazed if he hadn't. Bohr was on the British team for the Manhattan Project, and he wouldn't have been much use at nuclear weapon design if he didn't accept E=mc2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:41, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you have a tendency to make up claims (''As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '', ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula'', and, yes, '' "suddenly" or "at that time" is a nuance of the Greek ἰδού''). And when your bluff is called, you are miffed! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::''Protected "E=mc²": insertion of a fact tag instead of finding and adding a reference.'' That is ridiculous: there is no way of ''finding and adding a reference'' for this made-up "''fact''"!
::It is, however, not very difficult to show that the ''fact'' was invented: just take a look into ''"Foundations of Quantum Physics I''", a book written by Niels Bohr and Jorgen Kalckar. Here Bohr uses what he calls ''Einstein's relation'' without any trepidation! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Presumably, then, the relevant text should be changed to something like "it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, although Niels Bohr later accepted it." and then add the citation. Or you could clarify with something like "the liberal Nobel Prizewinner Niels Bohr".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:18, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::::*There is no reason to think that there was a time at which Niels Bohr didn't accept it!
::::*Is there any source which shows that it was ''widely rejected at the time''? Of course, there was the [[Deutsche Physik]], but does this count?
::::*That said: the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate.
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:44, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::You make some valid points as the online evidence is remarkably scant, even though the disagreement between Bohr and Einstein is well-known. This may be a (rare) example where the internet is less adequate than books. I did add an explanatory footnote and the protection to the page should be expiring soon, if not already.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

*Einstein disagreed with Bohr regarding quantum mechanics. Could you provide a source that Bohr disagreed with Einstein on the theory of relativity? I can't find one!
*As I said, the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate, and I'll reinsert it, as I don't think that there are any sources to back-up your claim.
*Furthermore, I have difficulties to believe that Lord Rutherford had problems with ''E=mc²'', he seemed to appreciate the liquid-drop-model of Gamov, Bohr, et al.
*''a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light'': no one claims that the '''three''' are equivalent!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence ==

I've changed the introduction to something a bit more encyclopaedic. Please don't revert without discussing it first. Thanks. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:28, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Political Pressure ==

''Political pressure has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation''

More likely the fact that similar experiments as the one Cockcroft and Walton are performed by undergraduates in each department teaching physics around the world! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:30, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:No, that would not explain why it "is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of" E=mc2. Even if you think the formula is somehow true, surely you do not deny the political pressure in academia against anyone who might consider questioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 3 April 2012 (EDT)
::It's entirely possible for someone who questions the validity of E=mc2 to pursue a career in science; scientists are encouraged to question the validity ''everything''. However if they ''deny'' the validity of E=mc2 then a scientific career is indeed off-limits to them, for the same reason as it's off-limits to someone who denies that 1+1=2. The fact is, E=mc2. It's been verified time and time again. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:44, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

To talk about political pressure in this context is ridiculous. The conversion of Mass to Energy and vice versa and the validity of E=mc2 has been demonstrated experimentally so often(an early example is given in the main page) that to deny that the equation describes observed nature flies in the face of observation and is thus unscientific. To question its validity without hard experimental evidence or a sound theoretical argument (neither of which has been demonstrated) would simply be a matter of scientific (in)competance.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:16, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:*Aschlafly, if you argue against ''E=mc²'' out of a position of (willful) ignorance, you won't be taken seriously. Unfortunately this is what you are doing, as your (non-) answer [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton|above]] is showing.
:*Criticism of ''E=mc²'' on ideological grounds just doesn't work, as the adherents of the [[Deutsche Physik]] found out in the early 1940s.
:*But obviously, the theory is under constant discussion, as is the concept of energy or mass.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:34, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

== Matter-light relationship ==

Mr. Schafly, I think you are misunderstanding the nature of the <math>E=mc^2</math> relationship. To illustrate, I will give an example.

Suppose we have a map where 1 inch of distance on the map corresponds to 5 miles actual distance. If points A and B are located 2.5 inches apart on the map, we can compute the actual distance between them as follows:
:<math>2.5 \textrm{ map\,in} \cdot \frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}} = 12.5 \textrm{ mi}</math>
In general, if the map distance between two points is <math>d</math> and the actual distance between the points is <math>D</math>, then the following formula is satisfied:
:<math>D = dc</math>
where <math>c</math> is the conversion factor <math>\frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}}</math>. The equation above does not relate distance to five or map distance to quintessence. Rather, it posits a direct relationship (or equivalence) between the map distance and the actual distance, related by a conversion factor.

Likewise, <math>E=mc^2</math> posits a direct relationship between mass and energy. It does not relate mass to the speed of light (or light itself), nor does the equation related light to energy. Rather, <math>c^2</math> is a conversion factor, just like the <math>c</math> was in our equation for computing actual distances from map distances. I hope this helps explain why some editors have concern with your statement of the relationship posited by <math>E=mc^2</math>. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:19, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:But Energy and mass have known meanings in other contexts, unlike the distances (in inches) on the map page in your example. If Energy or mass were being redefined by E=mc2, then I think your analogy would work. But people are not defending E=mc2 by saying it entails a redefinition of Energy or mass.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::The equation postulates how mass and energy can be interchanged while conserving the total amount of mass energy. For example, according to the equation, a nuclear reaction that causes 1.0 kg of mass to be lost will produce 9.0 x 1016 J energy. The amount of energy produced ''by the loss of mass'' is proportional to the mass lost. It is the same sort of equivalence between the number of pounds you get at a currency exchange and the number of dollars you pay (which, come to think of it, is probably an even better analogy). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:13, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::(inserted reply here) E=mc2 claims more than the relation between mass and energy is linear (which is itself implausible). It also claims that the proportional factor is precisely equal to the speed of light squared. Restating the meaning of the equation in plain terms demonstrates how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Energy and mass have known meanings in THIS context! The equation tells us how much energy will be liberated by losing a set amount of mass, or how much energy (for example hard gamma rays) is required to create a set amount of mass. It is a valid equation. It doesn't matter ''what'' objections anyone has to it based on principle or logic; it's been tested and it's correct. This is getting pretty frustrating. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:56, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

Perhaps we should have two articles [[E=mc² (science)]] and [[E=mc² (new age)]]: every sentence Aschlafly writes on this subjects shows that he knows so very little about the science involved - and has no interest to get informed any further. Instead his methods reminds me of homeopaths and other quacks advertising their craft by misrepresenting sources, cherry-picking evidence and generally repeating false statements over and over again despite of better knowledge. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:05, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

===A question===

Mr Schlafly, you've said that this equation "purports" to describe the equivalence of matter and energy. The fact is, it's been repeatedly tested and it ''does'' describe the equivalence of matter and energy. However I get the feeling that there's some misunderstanding here. What, exactly, is your objection to E=mc2? Do you think it's incorrect - in which case go check the experimental data - or do you think it's being used to advance some sort of political agenda? I think we've reached a deadlock here and to make any progress on improving the article it would be helpful to know what you think is wrong with the equation. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:02, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
:The problem is that it is a self-sustaining myth presented as "fact" by the same self-serving scientific establishment who have built an tautological edifice on nothing. It is designed to subtly indoctrinate children into the world of moral, social and scientific relativity by suggesting that "everything is relative".--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 17:03, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:The equation is nonsensical. Mass has nothing to do with the speed of light, and cannot be equated to energy simply by multiplying it twice by the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::Andy, how do you explain the result of the Cockcroft- Walton experiment? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 01:42, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::A very good question! Aschlafly, you could try to answer it by responding to [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|this section above]]! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bohr disagreed with Einstein's 1905 paper ==

Aschlafly, do you have any source for this claim? It seems to be factual incorrect. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:27, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

I looked into it and for me it is an ''ad-hoc'' fabrication to make a point - even the time-line doesn't work out: a '''''trustworthy''''' encyclopedia shouldn't work this way! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:58, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Some questions ==

I still don't understand why (a) Andy Schlafly doesn't know the difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass and (b) he seems obsessed over the speed of light in the equation. The m in the equation is inertial mass! As others have stated, when talking about gravitational mass, you need to consider general relativity.What E=mc^2 says is that mass is just a form of energy. It says nothing about the unification of electromagnetism and gravity (it doesn't even say anything about gravity!). Moreover, do you, Andy Schlafly, understand that electromagnetism is not the only theory that has c as a special value? All massless particles travel at the speed of light. In GR, gravity travels at the speed of light.

If you deny it, how do you account for changes in mass in nuclear reactions? How do you account for electron-positron annihilation as well as dozens of other examples of reactions that don't conserve mass in particle physics?

And by the way, as has been pointed out, if you deny special relativity, you have to reject Maxwell's equations. Are they a liberal conspiracy as well? --[[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:"Usually when we speak of an object's mass we do not distinguish whether we are referring to its inertial mass or its gravitational mass. This is because the quantity of matter present in an object, i.e., its mass, does not depend on the method by which it is measured." [http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=Dynamics_InertialGravitationalMass%252525252Exml] Indeed, no measurement has ever detected a difference between the two.

:As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc2.

:Your third point is often repeated by Relativists but overlooks that Maxwell's equations were developed and demonstrated decades before the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Maxwell's equations survived just fine for years without anyone claiming that somehow E=mc2. Indeed, an assertion that people "have to reject Maxwell's equations" based on relativity suggests a mathematical approach to physics, rather than an observational one. Are you aware of how Eddington claimed that a physical constant "must" have a certain value due to some mathematical rationale? (He was wrong, of course.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Your first point: It's good that we all agree that inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing. (This is the fundamental hypothesis of general relativity, by the way.) But the term "mass" always means "inertial mass". Gravity never appears anywhere in special relativity. Even if Newton's constant of universal gravitation ("G") were zero, that is, we lived in a hypothetical universe in which there is no gravity, special relativity, the Lorentz transform, and E=mc^2 would still be true. There should be no mention of gravity anywhere in the article. But the second sentence of the article refers to "mass (i.e., gravity)". Please take that out. I would do it myself, but I'd get it wrong, since I don't know what point you were trying to make.

::Your second point: That chemical reactions that cause energy to be released result in a reduction of the final mass most certainly '''''is''''' astounding. No one had ever seen this, or suspected it, before E=mc^2, and it is doubtful that anyone has seen it to this day, since the effect is so small for chemical reactions. The phenomenon is known only because we know that E=mc^2 is true.

::Your third point: Yes, Maxwell's equations were developed decades before relativity, and survived just fine before anyone suspected that E=mc^2. Your claimed "assertion that people 'have to reject Maxwell's equations' based on relativity" is not made by anyone. It's the ''denial'' of relativity that would necessitate a denial of Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations imply relativity, though Maxwell didn't realize it. In fact, it was an analysis of Maxwell's equations, not the Michelson-Morley experiment, that led to relativity. If we lived in a hypothetical universe in which there were no electric or magnetic forces, relativity would still be true.

::[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 23:36, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:::You didn't respond to my point about [[Arthur Eddington]], who was the biggest promoter of the [[Theory of Relativity]] in the English world.
::::The reason is that has nothing to do with E=mc^2. Your point about Eddington was presumably referring to the alpha=1/137 business, right? I am aware of that. It was in the late 1930's. Would you like me to write an article about it? I'd be glad to do so. Eddington's promotion of relativity in England was in the 1920's, after the eclipse (his book was in 1923), and was about ''general'' relativity. E=mc^2 is in ''special'' relativity, and was widely accepted by then. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Simply put, the [[Theory of Relativity]] is a mathematical theory (which, by the way, is taught in math departments in some universities); this mathematical theory has never been based on meaningful physical observations. Any statement that someone must reject Maxwell's equations if he rejects the [[Theory of Relativity]] shows how the mathematical cart can be incorrectly placed before the physical horse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:21, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Of course it's been based on meaningful physical observations. To be more precise, it's based on repeated experiments where the relation between the observed mass loss and the observed energy release is E=mc2. I really don't know what your problem is, but to challenge the validity of something as thoroughly confirmed as E=mc2 is not going to get you anywhere. The equation is valid. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 03:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::My comments were aimed at people who accept that both mathematical theory and experimental observations have a role to play, and that they complement each other. There is no cart and no horse. Relativity, like Newtonian mechanics, involves both elegant mathematics and observation, and the observations buttress the theory very well. It's possible for people to get carried away with the mathematics, as Eddington did with the 137 business, but that hasn't happened with relativity. And yes, if you don't accept relativity, you can't make Maxwell's equations work correctly, though Maxwell didn't realize that at the time. It was only later that Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein fixed that. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

''As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc². ''
Aschlafy, it may not come as a surprise, but you are wrong again:
*The mass of the products of a chemical reaction is nearly equal to the mass of the reagents, because the energy which is involved is so much less than that of a nuclear fusion or fission.
*A kilogram of [[TNT]] will release 4.484 MJ of energy, if you break this down for a single molecule, you see that less than 10 eV are released per molecule in the explosion. Compare this with the 17,200,000 eV per nucleus in the experiment of Corckcroft and Walton!
*In fact, if you let the products of the explosion cool down, the equivalent of this energy will be missing - but it is such a small amount that it is hard to detect it. But nevertheless, E=mc² could be observed.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:40, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:E=mc²

2012-04-06T03:36:01Z

JudyJ: /* Some questions */ 3 more replies

==I'm Finding This a Little Hard to Understand==
First off, E = mc2 describing a relationship between energy and matter is only one corollary. It is also part of a well known problem in chemistry... Or is isotopic mass not less than the sum of it's parts? The equation itself HAS been derived from the Theory of Relativity, and is a direct consequence of the energy momentum four vector for an object with 0-momentum. The quote you provide from the paper states that the theory is not enough for a rigorous PROOF, but it never tries to deny the derivability of the equation. Derivation and proof are two entirely different things.

==This Article Could Use Sources or Better Explanation==
Wow. Classic Andy. Unsourced statements supposedly contradicting well-established theories of physics. No real proof other than "the Bible says it's not true," even though this is an extremely uncommon interpretation Genesis. --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 01:06, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's a start for now, and will expand over time. That's how wikis work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Doesn't it relate energy to mass? The speed of light is just a constant here. [[User:IanR|IanR]] 02:22, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Humbug ==

The phrase ''meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement '' (as used in the article) fits the first paragraph to a t.

Aschlafly, please try to refute the explanation of the experiments of John Cockroft and Ernest Walton, which is accepted generally under physicists. And try to give some sources - or if not, some of your own calculations!

If not, just erase the first section.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:23, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

== Nobel Lecture ==

I took out the link to the Nobel lecture, it can be found in the short summary. But be aware that John Cockroft is using the dreaded formula with ease (but without stating so explicitly - why should he, it's already generally accepted!) An astute reader, who not only searches for the formula finds e.g., the formulation:

:'''This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass units.'''

Indeed, these are the ≈ 17MeV!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:51, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

==Irrelevant claims==
Are these claims of so called "experimental verification" valid or useful? If you look at enough so-called science you can find people claiming anything. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 12:59, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:''you can find people claiming anything'' Indeed - and that's why there is a difference between the unsubstantiated claims in the first section, and the actual experiments in the following paragraphs. If you have a good explanation of the outcome of these experiments (some math would be nice), feel free to add your personal ''claim''.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:03, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::Why do you feel that I need to do that? I understand that you may wish to believe relativity is true, but that is no reason to impose your personal beliefs on others.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:40, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::Thinking that all claims have the same validity seems not a very conservative position. I don't expect you to accept my personal beliefs, but there is a tendency in physics that the claims which are backed up by those willing to do the experiments and the maths have a greater following than random insights. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:47, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::I don't understand why your personal beliefs are even included in the article.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 13:58, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::*Because they are bolstered by experiments...
:::::*...and they aren't just my beliefs - in fact it will be very hard to find a physicist who doesn't share them. And that's something which shouldn't be easy to ignore in an article on a physical subject.
:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:02, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If science is your religion then you will find scientists who share your views. I still don't see why they should be hosted here. The introduction makes the Biblical position clear.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:07, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Religion is my religion, science is my hobby. And just because there is one single interpretation of a few verses of Genesis out there which you think to contradict the experiments of the physicists doesn't shatter my religious beliefs nor my trust in physics. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Then why do you insist with this anti-religious pseudoscience?--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 14:41, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
← Now you have intrigued me: what's your definition of pseudoscience? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:45, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

Pssst! DavidEdwards! You're trying waaaaay too hard. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:20, 25 March 2012 (EDT)
:Too hard about what?
:As far as the pseudoscience question is concerned - "science" which is used to promote a worldview which has no basis in moral reality is pseudoscience. Science which is designed to suggest that morality is relative clearly falls into this category.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

==Question==
This snipet of sentence appears in the introduction: "...''a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" Let's compare that to the entire sentence it was lifted from: "'''''Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally,''' a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory.''" One can't help but notice that the part of the sentence that states that the theory has been observed to be valid in real world experimentation, has been surgically removed. Why is this? Is it because it stands in contradiction to the claim the lead author of this article is trying to promulgate? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the [[hearsay]] that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR? Liberal conspiracy? Also, do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 21:24, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the [[Theory of Relativity]] may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Yes. We already know the Theory of Relativity is an incomplete model of our universe. So yes, the theory may be "false", but the one that takes it's place will most likely have many of the same properties. Secondly, would I approve of a "well-written paper that criticized it"? I don't know what that means. I'm not a physicist, so I don't see what difference my "approval" of said paper would make. Now that I've been so kind as to answer your questions, would you return the courtesy and answer the ones I posted above? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 22:35, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::The qualifications on your answer render it almost meaningless. I'm not asking whether your approval of a paper would make a difference, or your opinion about whether you think the replacement of the [[Theory of Relativity]] will "most likely" be another theory of relativity. The question was simple and straightforward, referring to a paper critical of the theory of relativity without any appeasement to those who insist on believing in it. An unqualified answer is requested.

:::::Also, did you ever answer my simple question on [[Talk:Main Page]] about how much time you've spent reading the [[Bible]] this month?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Come off it Schlafly. This article is not about my Bible reading, is it? No. Does my opinion of the publishing criteria of physics academia have any bearing on the assertions you are trying make? No. Again: Do you not accept that mass and energy are interchangeable or is it a problem with this specific equation? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 23:11, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

:::Andy, do you accept the possibility that the Theory of Relativity may be correct, and would you approve a well-written paper or book that supported it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Some points ==

*''Misplaced claims of experimental verification'': if you want to put on the disclaimer ''misplaced'', please explain the results of the experiments in another way.
*''Why won't a peer-reviewed journal publish a criticism of SR or GR?'' But they do: remember the neutrino thing? Or the papers of H. Ives? In fact the first event has shown that especially the publication of experiments (seemingly) violating currently accepted theories gets attention!
*Taking only the second half of ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."'' makes you looking deceptive. Take the whole sentence and try to explain the motivation of the first half. Otherwise anyone who looks the quote up will suspect an ulterior motive!
*The whole first section is a train wreck.
*''[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of [[gravity]].'' Only when you accept the general theory of relativity it is, otherwise inertial mass and gravitational mass are quite different animals.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:46, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::I have attempted to clarify the last point on the [[Mass]] page, and also removed the fact template from the first paragraph, since the explanation is given later on. As it stood, the "citation needed" banners following important points tended to undercut the authority of the article.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:29, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The problem is not a confusion of weight and mass, but the conflation of gravitational and inertial mass. In the classical theory, there is no reason why both should be the same, it's just an experimental fact.
::So, I'm sorry, your new entry didn't help.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::But they always are the same, aren't they? I don't see why knowing or not knowing the reason (yet) has any bearing on the question.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:43, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly writes: ''Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of gravity. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity.''
::::E=mc² isn't about gravity, to invoke it here is a deflection. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

::::: OK. But bear in mind that this page clearly exists to provide a counterweight to certain liberal views. To do that, clarity of message is needed, and a "citation needed" banner has a deflating effect on the strength of that clarity. So perhaps you could suggest a wording that might be acceptable without the "citation needed" bit?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

No, I can't. Frankly, I don't see the clarity in this piece: at the moment, it is still sadly missing. So I hope, that Aschlafly taking care of the fact-tags (other then trimming them away) will add to this clarity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:13, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Examples of how meaningless E=mc² is: descriptions for the layman ==

Try to explain a complicated formula in 1-2min, then have a single sentence of this soundbit taken out. You can bet that this may sound meaningless. That's no fault of the formula. I'll change the title back. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::The quotes illustrate how difficult it is to explain the concept to a layman. Take a look [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/expe-text.html here], where you can find the quotes in context. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:16, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The quotes were solicited to describe the meaning of the equation to laymen, not to illustrate how difficult that is. The difficulty arises from the meaningless nature of the equation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Actually the meaning of the equation is very clear: the total energy contained in matter is its mass multiplied by the speed of light in a vaccum squared. Experiment after experiment, and nuclear reactor after nuclear reactor, has clearly demonstrated that the total energy released by a reaction is the lost mass multiplied by c2. Therefore whether the theories of relativity are true or not, E=mc2 is true. Equally, even if classical Newtonian mechanics was false, the kinetic energy of a moving mass would still be accurately described by Ek=1/2mv2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:34, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::Indeed. Internet quotes are really not very useful. A skilled researcher can always find someone saying something to justify their position however bizarre or immoral. This is a typical weakness (and response!) of those who have no real moral or religious basis for their convictions. --[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 19:04, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::These quotes are absolutely meaningless. It looks like you took random sentences from the PBS article and then inserted them into the article as if they had any real significance. This is made even more moot when you consider the fact that the article claims that "Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms E=mc²" and then you go on to quote three. Not to mention, most of the quotes aren't actually explaining what the equation means - a basic understanding of algebra and what the symbols mean is sufficient to understand its basic meaning - but rather what it entails, its implications. Tim Halpin-Healy's quote I think is better than taking some random sentences and then implying that they mean that physicists don't know what E=mc² means. --[[User:Tyg13|Tyg13]] 15:58, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::The problem is that '''E=m2does not meaning anythimg that makes sense. Anyone is welcome to try to explain it here. Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, it doesn't. It causes your energy to increase by a number of foot-pounds equal to '''one pound''' times the speed of light squared. I've explained this to you already and it isn't difficult. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::The equation is essentially just a conversion ratio, its not difficult to understand that units of energy (Whether it is Joules, pound-foot, or erg) look essentially like a velocity squared times a mass (in SI units - kg m^2/s^2) this is not relativity or theory dependent, its the definition of Energy. The Special Relativistic analysis that results in the basic equation just determines that the conversion ratio is precisely that universal constant '''c''' in whatever units are convenient. There is no blindingly obvious or intuitive reason why this SHOULD be the case (conceivably the conversion ratio could have any number of complicated dimensionless constants in front), but basic mathematical logic allows us to derive this simple relationship from the postulates of Special Relativity. That being said, its a rather useless equation on everyday scales. In reality, after consuming a pound of cake your body begins to break down the chemical bonds in the sugars/fats/proteins to extract usable energy, about 1500 food calories worth of it. If you had a precise enough scale and could somehow keep a human in a hermetically sealed bag that prevents the escape of any moisture/gas etc. you would be able to measure that after consuming and digesting the cake your bodyweight would not be +1 lb, but about 70 pg (picograms - 10^-12 grams) less, so if you weighed 150.0lb and ate a pound of cake (total of 151lb), after digestion you would actually weigh 70pg less than 151lb. It is important to note that this "mass" isn't "lost" it is merely the "weight" of the energy stored in the chemical bonds, in other words in a pound of cake there is (1lb - 70pg) of stuff and 70pg worth of "chemical energy" with a conversion ratio of c^2. If you had some magic machine that could convert mass to energy at 100% efficiency the detonation of a body sized bomb would release 20 times more energy than the largest nuclear weapon detonated by man kind, however due to the nature of nuclear transitions/processes such a 100% conversion rate is not possibe . On the scale of nuclear bonds (order of MeV) this difference becomes conceivably measurable, but even so, in the detonation of a hiroshima sized nuclear weapon, the loss of mass due to the nuclear fission is approximately 500mg, the rest of the nuclear material is dispersed as fallout, considering that there was ~60kg of nuclear material in the weapon, this corresponds to an energy "efficiency" ~1%, which is typical of fission devices. In a 100MT nuclear bomb this is conceivably larger at nearly 5kg, and the fusion type weapon that can achieve this high yields has considerably higher mass-energy conversion efficiency at around ~20% [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:53, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: Another way of thinking about is this. Consider your typical AA batery, it is not a difficult stretch of the mind to understand that this battery stores electrical energy, approximately 2Ampere-hours at 1.5v which is approximately 5000J worth of STORED electical energy. Now, CONSUMING this battery does not cause your kinetic energy to increase by 5000J the same way that consuming a pound of cake does not cause your kinetic energy to increase by 1lb*c^2, you are still limited by your ability to convert between different energy sources. So A RC car would be able to use that battery to move around for several hours, YOU on the other hand will most likely just pass the battery through your body and the basic chemicals that are storing this electric energy will come out unaltered. The same way that a pound of cake can sustain you for a day, but try stuffing it into the battery compartment of your RC car and it won't move an inch. "Mass-energy" works much the same way, sure consuming a pound of cake increases your "rest energy" or by an enormous amount, but in reality there is no way to convert mass directly to energy so its much the same as swallowing a battery or stuffing cake into the RC car. [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 17:05, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:At any rate, eating a pound of cake, is not nuclear physics, it is chemistry, where your cells digest and utilize the sugars within. Protiens are also converted into sugar.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 18:28, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

== Aschlafly, could you give us... ==

... your interpretation of the results of the experiment by Cockroft and Walton? Cockroft describes in his Nobel Lecture how the kinetic energy of the alpha-particles could be provided by ''diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.'' (p. 170). Please take into account that this isn't about energy in form of electromagnetic waves!

If you don't address the results of the actual experiments, all your claims are just meaningless verbiage.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:39, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:Cockcroft (please spell his name correctly) does not even cite E=mc2 in his Nobel lecture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::You don't think that it is ''implied'' by the quote that AugustO provided? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:10, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::No, I don't. E=mc2 is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability. The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

From the lecture: ''It was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy release of 17.2 million volts. This energy could be provided by a diminution of mass of 0.0184 mass
units.''

Aschlafly, your ignorance is showing:
17.2 MeV /c² = 1.602*10-19kg m²/s² *17.2 *109/(3*108 m/s)² = 3.0616 * 10-29kg = 0.0184 amu

In fact as this is such a ''general truth of universal applicability'', J. Cockroft could take it for granted that his scientifically literate audience would be able to make this calculation.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:26, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

:::One question, though: We have four protons and four neutrons on the left hand side of the equation, and four protons and four neutrons on the right hand side. So why the difference in mass?
:::Also, forgive my ignorance, but why is the 'energy' measured in volts? Volts are not a measure of energy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:40, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

*Bainbridge measured the mass of 7Li directly, using mass spectrometry.
*Indeed, three protons and four neutrons weight less than a 7Li - kernel
*Energy is measured in this cases in [[Electron-Volts]]. One electron volt is the energy of an electron which passed through a potential of 1 Volt.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:54, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, please contribute something substantive instead of talking up a storm. Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 11:56, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::James Wilson, please don't interfere in interesting and substantive discussions. Thank you! [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 12:12, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::"Baobab", please state what substance is coming out of this conversation. You have had a history of engaging in hefty talk. Please start contributing. I have had some great insights contributing in a few articles today and will continue to do so. Many thanks for your future contributions.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 12:47, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::"James Wilson", AugustO is clarifying things and giving us some great insights, as CPalmer's latest reply shows. Discussions will often lead to better articles, which is why your interference was totally uncalled for. I guess your only motive was to defend Mr. Schlafly, but he can take care of himself and really doesn't need your help. Regards, [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 13:30, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::Thanks, AugustO. Relativity or no relativity, I am learning a lot from this discussion.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:00, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::You are posing excellent questions! Indeed it should be of interest for Aschlafly, too:
:::'''Aschlafly, two protons (1.0073amu) and two neutrons (1.0087amu) have a combined mass of 4.0320 amu. An alpha-particle - existing from two protons and two neutrons - has a mass of 4.0015 amu. How do you explain this diminution of mass?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:42, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
::::What real evidence do you have that these particles even exist? No doubt you've read it in a book or some "qualified person" has said it is true. In reality you accept these things on the word of somebody else - in other words your belief in the existence of these particles is a matter of scientific faith in something which you have no personal knowledge. There is obviously no problem with believing things on faith, but please don't pretend it's "true because science says it's true". Christians get their real truth from a higher authority.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 18:49, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::I find Mr O's position to be rather odd. He insists that Mr Schlafly - and only Mr Schlafly answers his questions. Yet at the same time Mr O steadfastly ignores comments specifically directed at him.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 16:11, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::If you're referring to your question about how he knows that protons and neutrons really exist, I suspect he thought it wasn't worth answering. I tend to agree. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:15, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

@DavidEdwards: Sorry, [[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]], I didn't want to ignore you. I hadn't caught up after the databank mishap, I'm afraid.
So, to answer your questions: At school, we performed a couple experiments -there were teltron tubes, the Millikan the photo-electric effect, the Millikan Oil Drop experiment, de Broglie's electron diffraction experiments, etc. These experiments confirmed my persuasion that the electrons, protons and neutrons are physically real entities. The proposed theories explained these effects - and sitting in front of a computer, I'm surprised that you aren't willing to accept the theories behind semi-conductors. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:25, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
@SamCoulter: There is some truth in your statement, too: it's like asking a priest: ''let's talk about your religion without mentioning Jesus''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:28, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Restoration ==

I could restore this page to the last version which I had edited. I don't know whether there were more entries. This should help to restore the article: perhaps one positive effect could be that Aschlafly marvels about the questions in the previous section for a while and rethinks his position! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:36, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

== Instead of the source - tag ==

*''E=mc² is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement in physics that purports to relate all matter to light.''
It relates matter to energy, the square of the speed of light is just the conversation factor
*''In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism).''
It isn't about gravitational mass, but about inertial mass. To identify both means to invoke the General Theory of Relativity
* ''Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap. ''
How so? It works!
* ''Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.''
So, physicists should just give up looking for it? I dare to say that there are many Christian physicists - they may just not follow your special interpretation of Genesis!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:29, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

== A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton ==

I'd appreciate an answer by Aschlafly (and him alone) to the following questions:

'''1.''' Do you accept that the mass of the Lithium-kernel (7Li), of alpha-particles (4He) and of protons (1H) can be measured fairly accurately, as these are charged particles?

'''2.''' Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockroft and Walton, i.e.
:::{|
!particle
!mass
|-
|1H||1.0072 amu
|-
|4He||4.0011 amu
|-
|7Li||7.0130 amu
|}
If not, which values do you think to be right?

'''3.''' Do you agree that before the reaction the mass of the particles involved was 8.0202 amu?

'''4.''' Do you agree that after the reaction the mass of the particles involved is 8.00220 amu?

'''5.''' Do you agree that there is a mass decrease of 0.0180 amu?

'''6.''' Before the experiment, the Li was at rest and the proton had a kinetic energy of less than 1MeV. Do you accept these values?

'''7.''' After the experiment, a pair of alpha-particles was observed, both having an kinetic energy of 8.6MeV. Do you think that this value is correct?

'''8.''' Can you tell me where the mass went? Can you tell me where the energy came from?

'''9.''' If your answer to question 8. is ''no'' in both accounts, than my answer is that there is a theory which explains the conversion of mass to energy, even if you don't like it!

As this theory works for this experiment, and for all the other fissions and fusions, it isn't liberal claptrap, but a meaningful theory. And you can't blame physicists for using it! Of course, you can blame journalist to abuse the formula - but this isn't the result of ''liberal physics'', but of ''bad reporting'', as an abuse of the dictum ''1+1=2'' doesn't reflect badly on number-theorists, but only on the person misattributing it.

Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:04, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that '''''E=mc2'''''. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, you haven't answered any of the questions above! Instead you are talking about something completely different:
*We are not talking about a ''chemical'' reaction! You should know the difference.
*Cockroft claims that the energy comes from the loss of mass - and he calculates it according to ''E=mc²''. Please read (and understand!) his lecture.
*Please give a list of a few (or at least a single) experiment which contradicts the formula. This should be easy, as you stated that ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula''. Oh, wait, you made that up...
*Please answer the questions 1 to 9: all the question are covered in Cockroft's lecture, so I'd be interested in your explanation!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:32, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
:AugustO, if you cannot even spell Cockcroft's name properly, how can Andy take anything you say seriously? --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 22:03, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

== Move ==

Could you please move this article to [[Essay:E=mc²]]? Then I could ignore all the misleading and outright wrong statements in the first section! Thanks, [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:57, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

== Experimental Facts ==

Aschlafly, on the one hand side, you state that ''no experiment distinguishes between "gravitational" and "inertial" mass'' - and that seems good enough for you. On the other hand side, you have a problem with the statement that E=mc² ''continues to be affirmed experimentally''. Do you spot the inconsistency? Indeed, I could write: ''the equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass has never been mathematically derived from first principles in classical mechanics, indeed, a rigorous proof of this equivalence is probably beyond the purview of classical theory.''

BTW, omitting the first part of the sentence ''"Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally..."'' makes you look very disingenuous (even if you have good motives) to anyone who looks up the link to the abstract!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:07, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

:It's hair-splitting jargon of doubtful significance. 99% of people know what mass is, and it's directly related to weight, not electrostatic energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:38, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
::And the remaining percent are the physicists which draw such distinctions with good reason! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]]
:::Even more confusing is that the article states mass is a measure of inertia. Inertia is resistance to acceleration, and that has nothing to do with gravity at all. The article as it stands is simply inaccurate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:51, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly: ''....may not even have any justification in the paper''
::::Aschlafly, havn't you read the paper? Here is a part of the conclusion:
:::::''Einstein produced about 18 virtuoso derivations and demonstrations all aimed at establishing the mass-energy principle. We have shown that although each of them gave evidence for the applicability of E0 = mc² to a particular set of circumstances, no one derivation, or collection of them taken together, succeeded in providing a definitive proof of its complete generality. That should not be surprising because the same situation occurs, for example, with F = ma, which is a different kind of relation than E0 = mc². Even so, 300 years of successful theoretical work have not proven the correctness of F = ma. Indeed, relativity showed that this expression, one of the bedrocks of classical mechanics, holds only approximately.
::::Here is another excerpt, on mass, electromagnetism etc:
:::::''In the 19th century, a number of European physicists, including the leading theoretician of the time, Hendrik Lorentz, were working to establish that mass was, in whole or in part, electromagnetic. There were primarily two competing theories, one by Lorentz, the other by Max Abraham. Both agreed that depending on the relative direction of its velocity and acceleration, an “electron” a generic charged particle moving through the aether could manifest both transverse and longitudinal speed-dependent mass components. There was even experimental evidence that seemed to confirm as much. Electromagnetic theory was then at the center of physics.''
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:56, 28 March 2012 (EDT)

::::(May I add that I think one shouldn't make such fundamental statements as ''E=mc² has no meaning'', if one only skims a few abstracts! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]])

Aschlafly, maybe you have not the time (or the access) to read the actual papers - as you should when drawing conclusions. But perhaps you can take a look at [http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Basic.html Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's ABC of Nuclear Science] to refresh the basics?Even there, they use ''Einstein's famous equation...''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:44, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== ...purports to relate all matter to light ==

When I write that for iron I get:
::V [cm³] * 7.874 g/cm³ = M [g]
I don't relate the mass to 7.8474, but to the volume. So, similarly Einstein's equations says that mass is proportional to energy, not light. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:38, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:But the constant applied in this case is the (square of the) speed of light! Are you saying that that is a coincidence? If so, why not just say "E=mc"?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:57, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::no, of course not, but we could write, e.g., Eε0 = m/μ0: the relationship is given between mass and energy... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::But the relationship itself is somehow connected to light. Or maybe, the relationship is connected with some third factor that also determines the speed of light.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:58, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
::::yes, but the c² is a constant. Does the equation E/c²=m relate all energy to light? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:18, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::Yes - the equation in any form relates mass, energy, and the speed of light. I think the article doesn't emphasise the light-energy relationship because it's the mass-energy relationship that appears absurd once the theory of relativity is discounted.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:22, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Even if you discount the theory of relativity, the experimental facts remain: in experiments where mass is deleted or created, this happens with the release or absorption of energy. And this energy is given by ≈8.99*1016m²/s² times the mass... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:31, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== Misleading footnote ==

::(Your footnote about the units is bogus. SI units are not arbitrary, since eg Joules can be derived from other SI units including kilograms, metres and seconds. Therefore, the relationship to light ''is'' (purported to be) a natural one.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:00, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Which footnote about units? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:04, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Ah, I see, no, not ''my'' footnote. The text was inserted by [[User:GregG/RSS_6#Mon.2C_26_Mar_2012_18:05:11_GMT_.28edit_by_MihailD.29_2|MihailD]], and obviously the equation holds in other systems, too. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:10, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

I took out the main part of the footnote: it should be obvious that in a physical equation only compatible physical units can be used, and that otherwise conversion factors have to be introduced. But there is no problem, if we have c in feet/h, m in pounds, and E in pound*feet²/h²
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:30, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:I see - my apologies. I thought you had added the footnote in order to try and make the point above. I agree that in any sensible unit system the equation will work (assuming the theory is right of course).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:32, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

:Looks like [[User:MihailD|MihailD]] received a lifetime block for this and related edits, so he'll be unable to explain or justify his comments. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:58, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::That's a pity! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== We will, we will, we will ==

Generally I enjoy the great contribution of SamHB. My only rub: the ''royal we'' - ''we will dispel'', ''we will show'', ''we don't do''. I don't think that this is the best way to phrase an encyclopedic article, and I'd like to see alternatives. For the moments, I just commented out some of the occurrences which in my opinion spoiled the fun of reading the article....

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:38, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:It is a bit chatty. The first one could be rephrased "This article sets out to...". I have reworded two of the others, and the rest might possibly be omitted entirely.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:44, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== I don't understand... ==

Why you guys destroyed a wonderful original piece of work by Mr. Schlafly. There are hundreds of books and web sites that explain relativity, why did you feel the need to reproduce that content here? --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:18, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:Perhaps because they are right and he is wrong? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you still haven't answered my [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|reasonable questions abouts this subject]]. To be ignorant on a subject isn't that big a deal, but to willfully stay ignorant while lecturing about it, that is! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:32, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

BTW, the ''wonderful original piece of work'' was not destroyed - you find it embedded in the text. A blanket reversion of the work of a couple of editors should be a no-no, please give reasons for reverting at least for each paragraph! And answer the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|questions!]] [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:42, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Protection of the Article ==

Stated reason: ''(with reluctance, and repeated reversions; for now, post specific suggestions for edits on the talk page)''

Aschlafly, this must be one of these definitions of irony, as I asked for specific reasons for your deletions of material. Isn't that censorship? BTW, you still haven't replied to the [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|sections above]], and frankly I'm starting to call your knowledge on this matter in question! Ignorance is not always bliss!

And if you are not willing to address the points made above by various contributors, are you at least willing to read and answer to ''specific suggestions for edits on the talk page''? Or is this a sham to force-feed your view to the readers?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis. Simply put, the entry had denigrated into the ''antithesis'' of the truth-seeking integrity expected of ''Conservapedia''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:41, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
::And what about the current entry? The fact is that E=mc2 is a perfectly valid equation demonstrating the equivalence of matter and energy and it has been thoroughly verified; the energy a piece of matter contains DOES equal its mass times ''c'' squared. This has been repeatedly demonstrated by experiments, which consistently show that the energy released by a reaction is equal within measuring limits to the overall mass lost. It's perfectly reasonable to reject any claim that this demonstrates the truth of moral relativism, atheism or anything else, but to criticise the equation itself as "meaningless" or "liberal claptrap" demonstrates no truth-seeking or integrity. E=mc2 is no more liberal than d=vt or 1+1=2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:53, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::The entry explains how nonsensical the formula is as a general principle -- and how it has never been derived as a matter of logic or demonstrated in any general, meaningful manner. Reliance on [[hearsay]] is not a serious alternative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::But it ''isn't'' a general principle. It's a mathematical expression of matter-energy equivalence and it's perfectly valid. Whether or not it's ever been derived as a matter of logic or not is irrelevant because it's been repeatedly demonstrated to be true in the most meaningful manner possible: if you turn matter into energy the amount of energy that comes out is always equal to the lost mass times ''c'' squared. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:59, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true. It doesn't. If someone gains one pound in weight, then it is preposterous for anyone to claim that his energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::Yes, it would be absolutely preposterous. In fact his energy would have increased by a number of foot-pounds equal to one pound times ''c''2 in feet per second. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:11, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
:::::::To explain that further, his energy would have increased in proportion to his '''weight''', not to the speed of light. If a person who weighed 150lb gained 1lb the energy contained in their mass would increase from 1.4467x1017 ft lb to 1.4564x1017 ft lb. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::The formula '''E=mc2''' does assert that his energy for a fixed gain in weight would increase in proportion to the speed of light squared and, as you say, that is preposterous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::No, his energy for a fixed gain in weight will increase in proportion to his '''weight'''. In my example of a 150lb man gaining 1lb, his new energy content will be 0.6667% higher, '''as will his weight'''. ''c''2 is just a constant. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:52, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::Andy seems to imagine that this energy should be immediately available for sports or doing work around the house, and that we should all be superheroes after having eaten a bar of chocolate. This is, of course, not so. The energy is still locked up in the mass, and it would require nuclear or particle reactions to convert even small parts of it into useful forms of energy. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:28, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
''The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of [[hearsay]] rather than logical analysis''. Then let's get factual: just answer a [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|few questions]]. Shouldn't be difficult, as you are so insightful. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:26, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Of course this is hearsay - and so it should be. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia - a collection of established information cited from other sources. Hearsay may be inappropriate in court, but it is the lifeblood of an encyclopedia. Anything that is not 'hearsay' is personal opinion or original research, and should be reserved for articles prefixed 'Essay:'. --[[User:JasperK|JasperK]] 08:23, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Then again, heresy tends to be more reputable when it comes from a professional who has studied the issue for years, instead of a man who doesn't understand how food works. [[User:JackFerner|JackFerner]] 12:23, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bare links ==

I noticed that [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=971455&oldid=971446 this edit] removed publication information about the references. Personally, I think this information is useful for two reasons: it helps Conservapedia editors locate the references from other sources if (and when) the links go dead, and it helps who print out Conservapedia articles and wish to look up the references offline. (Of course, I'm not suggesting that the URLs be removed, but this could be in addition to the publication information). Of course, there may be perfectly good reasons for removing the publication information of which I am not aware, but I otherwise think that the publication information should be included again (and I plan to do this once the protection expires). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:17, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

:Great point. I retrieved and added many of the citations back. If I missed any then I'd be happy to add them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

== Niels Bohr ==
Andy, for how often you rail against the Nobel Prize I'm surprised that you would try and use a former winner as an authority to support your misguided assertion. [[User:DennisR|DennisR]] 21:48, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

:Even a broken clock (like the Nobel Prize) gets it right every once in a while!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

::''. As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '' Who were these physicists? And what said Niels Bohr? I couldn't find anything. In the famous ''Gedankenexperiment'' at Solvay, he accepted ''E=mc²! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:14, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::And of course it ''isn't'' a "general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light." It's a statement of equivalence between energy and matter. Andy seems to be obsessed with the idea that light is involved somehow, and that conflicts with his rather odd idea that the Bible forbids a unified theory. I can only wonder what he'll do if science comes up with a unified theory. Probably deny that too. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:16, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, according to the information I found (Einstein and Bohr at the Solvay-conference), Niels Bohr accepted ''E=mc²''. So, a fact-tag was the only alternative to downright deleting the sentence: it allows you to bring up your sources! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:31, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:I'd have been amazed if he hadn't. Bohr was on the British team for the Manhattan Project, and he wouldn't have been much use at nuclear weapon design if he didn't accept E=mc2. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:41, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, you have a tendency to make up claims (''As a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light, it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, including Niels Bohr. '', ''Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula'', and, yes, '' "suddenly" or "at that time" is a nuance of the Greek ἰδού''). And when your bluff is called, you are miffed! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::''Protected "E=mc²": insertion of a fact tag instead of finding and adding a reference.'' That is ridiculous: there is no way of ''finding and adding a reference'' for this made-up "''fact''"!
::It is, however, not very difficult to show that the ''fact'' was invented: just take a look into ''"Foundations of Quantum Physics I''", a book written by Niels Bohr and Jorgen Kalckar. Here Bohr uses what he calls ''Einstein's relation'' without any trepidation! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:00, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Presumably, then, the relevant text should be changed to something like "it was widely rejected at the time by the leading 20th century physicists, although Niels Bohr later accepted it." and then add the citation. Or you could clarify with something like "the liberal Nobel Prizewinner Niels Bohr".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:18, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
::::*There is no reason to think that there was a time at which Niels Bohr didn't accept it!
::::*Is there any source which shows that it was ''widely rejected at the time''? Of course, there was the [[Deutsche Physik]], but does this count?
::::*That said: the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate.
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:44, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::You make some valid points as the online evidence is remarkably scant, even though the disagreement between Bohr and Einstein is well-known. This may be a (rare) example where the internet is less adequate than books. I did add an explanatory footnote and the protection to the page should be expiring soon, if not already.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

*Einstein disagreed with Bohr regarding quantum mechanics. Could you provide a source that Bohr disagreed with Einstein on the theory of relativity? I can't find one!
*As I said, the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag was absolutely appropriate, and I'll reinsert it, as I don't think that there are any sources to back-up your claim.
*Furthermore, I have difficulties to believe that Lord Rutherford had problems with ''E=mc²'', he seemed to appreciate the liquid-drop-model of Gamov, Bohr, et al.
*''a general claim of equivalence between mass, energy and the speed of light'': no one claims that the '''three''' are equivalent!
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence ==

I've changed the introduction to something a bit more encyclopaedic. Please don't revert without discussing it first. Thanks. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:28, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Political Pressure ==

''Political pressure has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation''

More likely the fact that similar experiments as the one Cockcroft and Walton are performed by undergraduates in each department teaching physics around the world! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:30, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:No, that would not explain why it "is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of" E=mc2. Even if you think the formula is somehow true, surely you do not deny the political pressure in academia against anyone who might consider questioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 3 April 2012 (EDT)
::It's entirely possible for someone who questions the validity of E=mc2 to pursue a career in science; scientists are encouraged to question the validity ''everything''. However if they ''deny'' the validity of E=mc2 then a scientific career is indeed off-limits to them, for the same reason as it's off-limits to someone who denies that 1+1=2. The fact is, E=mc2. It's been verified time and time again. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:44, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

To talk about political pressure in this context is ridiculous. The conversion of Mass to Energy and vice versa and the validity of E=mc2 has been demonstrated experimentally so often(an early example is given in the main page) that to deny that the equation describes observed nature flies in the face of observation and is thus unscientific. To question its validity without hard experimental evidence or a sound theoretical argument (neither of which has been demonstrated) would simply be a matter of scientific (in)competance.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:16, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

:*Aschlafly, if you argue against ''E=mc²'' out of a position of (willful) ignorance, you won't be taken seriously. Unfortunately this is what you are doing, as your (non-) answer [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockroft and Walton|above]] is showing.
:*Criticism of ''E=mc²'' on ideological grounds just doesn't work, as the adherents of the [[Deutsche Physik]] found out in the early 1940s.
:*But obviously, the theory is under constant discussion, as is the concept of energy or mass.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:34, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

== Matter-light relationship ==

Mr. Schafly, I think you are misunderstanding the nature of the <math>E=mc^2</math> relationship. To illustrate, I will give an example.

Suppose we have a map where 1 inch of distance on the map corresponds to 5 miles actual distance. If points A and B are located 2.5 inches apart on the map, we can compute the actual distance between them as follows:
:<math>2.5 \textrm{ map\,in} \cdot \frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}} = 12.5 \textrm{ mi}</math>
In general, if the map distance between two points is <math>d</math> and the actual distance between the points is <math>D</math>, then the following formula is satisfied:
:<math>D = dc</math>
where <math>c</math> is the conversion factor <math>\frac{5 \textrm{ mi}}{\textrm{map\,in}}</math>. The equation above does not relate distance to five or map distance to quintessence. Rather, it posits a direct relationship (or equivalence) between the map distance and the actual distance, related by a conversion factor.

Likewise, <math>E=mc^2</math> posits a direct relationship between mass and energy. It does not relate mass to the speed of light (or light itself), nor does the equation related light to energy. Rather, <math>c^2</math> is a conversion factor, just like the <math>c</math> was in our equation for computing actual distances from map distances. I hope this helps explain why some editors have concern with your statement of the relationship posited by <math>E=mc^2</math>. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:19, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:But Energy and mass have known meanings in other contexts, unlike the distances (in inches) on the map page in your example. If Energy or mass were being redefined by E=mc2, then I think your analogy would work. But people are not defending E=mc2 by saying it entails a redefinition of Energy or mass.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::The equation postulates how mass and energy can be interchanged while conserving the total amount of mass energy. For example, according to the equation, a nuclear reaction that causes 1.0 kg of mass to be lost will produce 9.0 x 1016 J energy. The amount of energy produced ''by the loss of mass'' is proportional to the mass lost. It is the same sort of equivalence between the number of pounds you get at a currency exchange and the number of dollars you pay (which, come to think of it, is probably an even better analogy). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:13, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::(inserted reply here) E=mc2 claims more than the relation between mass and energy is linear (which is itself implausible). It also claims that the proportional factor is precisely equal to the speed of light squared. Restating the meaning of the equation in plain terms demonstrates how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Energy and mass have known meanings in THIS context! The equation tells us how much energy will be liberated by losing a set amount of mass, or how much energy (for example hard gamma rays) is required to create a set amount of mass. It is a valid equation. It doesn't matter ''what'' objections anyone has to it based on principle or logic; it's been tested and it's correct. This is getting pretty frustrating. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:56, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

Perhaps we should have two articles [[E=mc² (science)]] and [[E=mc² (new age)]]: every sentence Aschlafly writes on this subjects shows that he knows so very little about the science involved - and has no interest to get informed any further. Instead his methods reminds me of homeopaths and other quacks advertising their craft by misrepresenting sources, cherry-picking evidence and generally repeating false statements over and over again despite of better knowledge. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:05, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

===A question===

Mr Schlafly, you've said that this equation "purports" to describe the equivalence of matter and energy. The fact is, it's been repeatedly tested and it ''does'' describe the equivalence of matter and energy. However I get the feeling that there's some misunderstanding here. What, exactly, is your objection to E=mc2? Do you think it's incorrect - in which case go check the experimental data - or do you think it's being used to advance some sort of political agenda? I think we've reached a deadlock here and to make any progress on improving the article it would be helpful to know what you think is wrong with the equation. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:02, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
:The problem is that it is a self-sustaining myth presented as "fact" by the same self-serving scientific establishment who have built an tautological edifice on nothing. It is designed to subtly indoctrinate children into the world of moral, social and scientific relativity by suggesting that "everything is relative".--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 17:03, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

:The equation is nonsensical. Mass has nothing to do with the speed of light, and cannot be equated to energy simply by multiplying it twice by the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
::Andy, how do you explain the result of the Cockcroft- Walton experiment? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 01:42, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:::A very good question! Aschlafly, you could try to answer it by responding to [[Talk:E%3Dmc²#A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockroft_and_Walton|this section above]]! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:01, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Bohr disagreed with Einstein's 1905 paper ==

Aschlafly, do you have any source for this claim? It seems to be factual incorrect. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:27, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

I looked into it and for me it is an ''ad-hoc'' fabrication to make a point - even the time-line doesn't work out: a '''''trustworthy''''' encyclopedia shouldn't work this way! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:58, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Some questions ==

I still don't understand why (a) Andy Schlafly doesn't know the difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass and (b) he seems obsessed over the speed of light in the equation. The m in the equation is inertial mass! As others have stated, when talking about gravitational mass, you need to consider general relativity.What E=mc^2 says is that mass is just a form of energy. It says nothing about the unification of electromagnetism and gravity (it doesn't even say anything about gravity!). Moreover, do you, Andy Schlafly, understand that electromagnetism is not the only theory that has c as a special value? All massless particles travel at the speed of light. In GR, gravity travels at the speed of light.

If you deny it, how do you account for changes in mass in nuclear reactions? How do you account for electron-positron annihilation as well as dozens of other examples of reactions that don't conserve mass in particle physics?

And by the way, as has been pointed out, if you deny special relativity, you have to reject Maxwell's equations. Are they a liberal conspiracy as well? --[[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:"Usually when we speak of an object's mass we do not distinguish whether we are referring to its inertial mass or its gravitational mass. This is because the quantity of matter present in an object, i.e., its mass, does not depend on the method by which it is measured." [http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=Dynamics_InertialGravitationalMass%25252Exml] Indeed, no measurement has ever detected a difference between the two.

:As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc2.

:Your third point is often repeated by Relativists but overlooks that Maxwell's equations were developed and demonstrated decades before the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Maxwell's equations survived just fine for years without anyone claiming that somehow E=mc2. Indeed, an assertion that people "have to reject Maxwell's equations" based on relativity suggests a mathematical approach to physics, rather than an observational one. Are you aware of how Eddington claimed that a physical constant "must" have a certain value due to some mathematical rationale? (He was wrong, of course.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Your first point: It's good that we all agree that inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing. (This is the fundamental hypothesis of general relativity, by the way.) But the term "mass" always means "inertial mass". Gravity never appears anywhere in special relativity. Even if Newton's constant of universal gravitation ("G") were zero, that is, we lived in a hypothetical universe in which there is no gravity, special relativity, the Lorentz transform, and E=mc^2 would still be true. There should be no mention of gravity anywhere in the article. But the second sentence of the article refers to "mass (i.e., gravity)". Please take that out. I would do it myself, but I'd get it wrong, since I don't know what point you were trying to make.

::Your second point: That chemical reactions that cause energy to be released result in a reduction of the final mass most certainly '''''is''''' astounding. No one had ever seen this, or suspected it, before E=mc^2, and it is doubtful that anyone has seen it to this day, since the effect is so small for chemical reactions. The phenomenon is known only because we know that E=mc^2 is true.

::Your third point: Yes, Maxwell's equations were developed decades before relativity, and survived just fine before anyone suspected that E=mc^2. Your claimed "assertion that people 'have to reject Maxwell's equations' based on relativity" is not made by anyone. It's the ''denial'' of relativity that would necessitate a denial of Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations imply relativity, though Maxwell didn't realize it. In fact, it was an analysis of Maxwell's equations, not the Michelson-Morley experiment, that led to relativity. If we lived in a hypothetical universe in which there were no electric or magnetic forces, relativity would still be true.

[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 23:36, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

E=mc²

2012-03-29T14:22:54Z

JudyJ: Still not right. Emacs doesn't like those delta characters.

'''E=mc²''' is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement that purports to relate all matter to light.<ref>The equation claims that the total energy ''E'' of a body in all forms is equal to that body's mass ''m'' multiplied by the square of the speed of light ''c''. The equation only holds true if [[SI]] units are used, hence ''E'' is measured in [[joule]]s, ''m'' in [[kilogram|kilograms]] and ''c'' in [[metre]]s per [[second]]. In other systems of units an additional [[constant]] of proportionality would be required.</ref> In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (''i.e.'', gravity) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc² is [[liberal]] claptrap.

[[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]] predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]].

[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the force of [[gravity]]. In contrast, the intrinsic [[energy]] of an object (such as an [[atom]]) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]].

For more than a century, the claim that '''E=mc²''' has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "[[energy]]" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the [[lamestream media]]. There have been attempts to find some justification for the equation in already understood processes involved in [[nuclear power]] generation and [[nuclear weapon]]s, and in the speculation about [[antimatter]].<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html Peter Tyson ''The Legacy of E=mc²''] October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''. </ref> The energy released in matter/antimatter annihilations corresponds to E=mc2; for example the annihilation of an electron and a positron (each with rest energy of 0.511 mega electron volts according to E=mc2) results in the release of two [[gamma ray]] [[photon]]s, which each have energy 0.511 mega electron volts.<ref>[http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Antimatter.html Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory] ''The ABC of Nuclear Science''</ref>

The [[Theory of Relativity]] has never been able to mathematically derive '''E=mc²''' from first principles, and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H Eugene Hecht: ''How Einstein confirmed E0=mc²''], American Journal of Physics, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp. 591-600 (2011)</ref>

It has been known for a long time that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by [[Henri Poincare]] in 1904,<ref>[http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540 Herbert E. Ives ''Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation''], JOSA, Vol. 42, Issue 8, pp. 540-543 (1952)</ref> but the equation '''E=mc²''' makes a claim far beyond that limited circumstance:

{{cquote|The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).|||Herbert Ives, 1952}}

== Description for the layman ==
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms '''E=mc²''':<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html Lexi Krock, David Levin (editors) ''E=mc² explained''], June, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''. </ref>{{cquote|''Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.''|||Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University}}{{cquote|''You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.''|||Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University}}{{
cquote|''It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.''|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}

== History of '''E=mc²''' ==

The [[liberal]] [[Public Broadcasting Service]] explained the history of '''E=mc²''' for its NOVA series as follows:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/ancestors-einstein.html</ref>

{{cquote|Over time, [[physicist]]s became used to multiplying an object's mass by the square of its [[velocity]] (mv²) to come up with a useful indicator of its energy. If the velocity of a ball or rock was 100 mph, then they knew that the energy it carried would be proportional to its mass times 100 squared. If the velocity is raised as high as it could go, to 670 million mph, it's almost as if the ultimate energy an object will contain should be revealed when you look at its mass times c squared, or its mc².}}

==Experimental verification==
The first experimental verification for the equation was performed 1932 by a team of an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton, as a byproduct of ''"their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles"''<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/# Nobel Prize Organization]</ref> for which they were honored with the [[Nobel Prize]] in physics in 1951. The idea of the mass defect - and its calculation using ''E=mc²'' can be found on page 169-170 of his Nobel lecture.<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf John D. Cockroft ''Experiments on the interaction of high-speed nucleons with atomic nuclei''], Nobel Lecture, Dec 11, 1951</ref>

They bombarded [[Lithium]] atoms with [[protons]] having a [[kinetic energy]] less than 1 [[Electron-Volts|MeV]]. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[α-particle]]s, for which the [[kinetic energy]] was measured as 17.3 MeV

:::::<math>{}_3^7\mathrm{Li}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}\,\rightarrow\,2\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math>

The mass of the particles on the left hand side is 8.0263 [[atomic mass units|amu]]s, the mass on the right hand side ''only'' 8.0077 amu.<ref>Gerard Piel ''The age of science: what scientists learned in the 20th century'', Basic Books, 2001, p. 144-145</ref> The difference between this masses is .00186 amu, which results in the following back-of-an-envelope calculation:

::::<math>0.00186\,\mathrm{amu} \cdot c^2 = 0.0186 \cdot 1.66 \cdot 10^{-27}\,\mathrm{kg}\cdot\left(3\cdot10^8\,\mathrm{\frac{m}{s}}\right)^2</math>
::::<math>\approx\,2.79\cdot 10^{-12} \,\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}</math>
::::<math>\approx \,17.3\,\mathrm{MeV}</math>

Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:

Probably the best empirical verification of '''E=mc2''' was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in ''Nature''<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Simon Rainville, James K. Thompson, et. al ''World Year of Physics: A direct test of E=mc²''] Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref>, as the authors write in their abstract:
{{cquote|Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10−7, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described.}}

==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==

For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc². (The equation applies to '''all''' interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc² applies only to nuclear interactions.)

The [[Theory of Relativity]] played no role in this work, but later tried to retrofit the theory to the data in order to explain the explain the observed mass changes. Here is the most famous example of the mass change.

Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by [[Otto Hahn]] and [[Fritz Strassmann]], and analyzed by [[Lise Meitner]], in 1938.

The decay path of [[Uranium]] that figured in the ''Hahn-Strassmann experiment'' may have been this:

:235U → 140Xe + 91Sr + 4n

(The [[Xenon]] decayed within about a minute to 140Ba. There are a large number of fission paths and fission products, but Hahn and Strassmann were searching for the chemical signature of [[Barium]].)

The masses of the particles are:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! Substance
! 235U
! 140Xe
! 91Sr
! 4 neutrons
|-
| Number of protons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Number of neutrons
| 235
| 140
| 91
| 4
|-
| Number of electrons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Mass
| 235.04393
| 139.92164
| 90.910203
| 4.03466
|}

The mass of the Uranium atom is 235.04393, and the sum of the masses of the products is 234.866503. The difference is .177427 amu, or, using the E=mc² equation, 165 million electron volts. (The generally accepted value for the total energy released by Uranium fission, including secondary decays, is about 200 million electron volts.)

The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc² equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

==A Topical Example: Speed of Extremely Energetic Neutrinos==
Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. Recently there has been quite a controversy over whether neutrinos were observed traveling at a speed faster than light. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel ''at'' the speed of light. This very issue came up on the [[Talk:Main_Page#Neutrinos]]. The speeds under discussion were calculated by the use of E=mc2.

The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10-36kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc2. If we don't accept that, we have to do the calculations under classical physics, using SI (meter/kilogram/second) units.) The neutrinos were accelerated to an energy of about 17GeV, or .27x10-8Joules. Using the classical formula <math>\mathrm{E} = \frac{1}{2}mv^2</math>, we get v=110x1012meters per second. This is about 370,000 times the speed of light.
However, the classical formula breaks down at speeds close to <math>c</math>, and indeed, as the speed of a massive object approaches <math>c</math>, the object's kinetic energy approaches <math>+\infty</math>.

Several scientists have gone on record stating that the neutrinos, which have mass, travel at precisely the speed of light. If true, this disproves the [[Theory of Relativity]] and the claim that '''E=mc2'''. However, it is more likely that those scientists are using language inaccurately. It is impossible to measure the speed of neutrinos precisely. What is meant is the difference between the speed of light and the speed of the neutrinos is too small to measure.

==Deducing the Equation From Empirical Observation==

While the equation was historically developed on theoretical grounds as an inevitable consequence of special relativity, it is possible to deduce it purely from empirical observation.

So, for the purposes of this section, imagine that one is in the era of "classical physics"; prior to 1900 or so. Relativity has not been invented, but, inexplicably, nuclear physics has. Imagine that the phenomena of radioactivity and nuclear fission have been observed, without any knowledge of relativity.

A well-accepted physical law of classical physics was the law of conservation of mass. This was not easy to deduce. It required careful analysis of such phenomena as combustion, in the 1700's, to eliminate the various confounding sub-phenomena that made the law difficult to see. But, by 1900, the law was well established:

::*'''In all interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''

For example, the mass of a TNT molecule is 227.1311 Daltons, or 227.1311 g/mol, which is, for all practical purposes, the same as the mass of its constituent Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen atoms. It is essentially impossible to measure the difference. The principle of conservation of mass is upheld.

But when nuclear phenomena are discovered, we notice something different. The masses of the result particles after an event (e.g. alpha decay, nuclear fission, or artificial transmutation) is measurably less than the masses of the original particle(s). With the invention of the mass spectrometer around 1920, it became possible to measure atomic weights of various isotopes with great precision.

Radium-226 decays into Radon-222 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 4.78 MeV.

1 kg of Radium-226 = <math>\frac{.60221413 \times 10^{27}}{226.0254}</math> atoms. (The numerator is Avogadro's number, and the denominator is the atomic weight of Radium-226.) This is 2.6643648 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Radon-222 atoms has mass .98226836 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01770864 kg.
The mass lost is .00002299 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 4.78 MeV, or 4.78 * .16021765 * 10-18 Joules. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of radium is 2.040 * 1012 Joules.

Also, Radon-222 decays into Polonium-218 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 5.49 MeV.

1 kg of Radon-222 = <math>\frac{.60221413 \times 10^{27}}{222.0176}</math> atoms. This is 2.7124612 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Polonium-218 atoms has mass .98194455 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .018028315 kg.

The mass lost is .00002713 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 5.49 MeV. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of polonium is 2.386 * 1012 Joules.

It looks as though we have to rewrite the law of conservation of mass:

For the Cockcroft-Walton experiment, we us Avogadro's number of particles. The mass of that many of the various atoms, in kilograms, is just their atomic mass. Avogadro's number of Lithium-7 atoms weighs 7.01600455 kg. The Hydrogen atoms weigh 1.007825032 kg, and the Helium atoms weigh 4.00260325 kg each. The atoms weigh 8.023829582 kg before, and 8.0052065 kg after. The mass lost is .018623082 kg.

The energy released is 17.3 MeV per reaction, or 1669 * 10-12 Joules per Avogadro's number.

It looks as though we have to rewrite the law of conservation of mass:

::*'''In all "ordinary" interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''
::*'''In nuclear interactions, there is a small but measurable loss of mass.'''

:By the way, we can clearly see that atomic weights of pure isotopes are not integers, and that it has something to do with the energy released by nuclear disintegration. In retrospect, the formula E=mc² explains the non-integer character of atomic weights.

Making special cases out of nuclear interaction versus non-nuclear ones is unsatisfactory, of course.

We do this for a few other interactions, including the explosion of TNT. This would include many other radioactive decays, and the Uranium fission phenomena described above. We won't bother with the details.

As observational scientists, we look for patterns in the behavior of nature. We make a table:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! interaction
! energy released per kg, Joules
! mass lost per kg of original substance, kg
|-
| explosion of TNT
| 4.184 * 106
| seems to be zero
|-
| alpha decay of Ra-226
| 2.040 * 1012
| .00002299 kg
|-
| alpha decay of Rn-222
| 2.386 * 1012
| .00002713 kg
|-
| Cockcroft-Walton experiment, per Avogadro
| 1669 * 1012
| .018623082 kg
|}

We plot these, and a few others, not shown, on graph paper, and find to our amazement that the relationship is linear.

For Radium decay, m/E = .1126 * 10-16
For Polonium decay, m/E = .1137 * 10-16
For the Cockcroft-Walton experiment, m/E = .1116 * 10-16
As a linear relationship, the mass defect for TNT would have been .47 * 10-10. We couldn't possibly have measured this.

So we can rewrite the rule for conservation of mass in a more satisfactory way:

::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to about .112 * 10-16 kg per Joule of energy released.'''

What we thought was exact conservation is just very nearly exact, and we hadn't been able to measure it before.

But maybe there's more. This constant has dimensions of kilograms per Joule. From high-school physics, we know that that is seconds squared divided by meters squared. That is, it is the reciprocal of the square of a velocity. We calculate that velocity. It is about 2.97 * 108 meters per second. Very close to the speed of light! Very interesting! (The calculations above were not extremely precise. The formula has been verified with great precision, but not here.)

Since we are just making empirical observations, we don't understand why this is so (that will have to wait for the invention of relativity), but we can formulate a hypothesis:

::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to <math>\frac{1}{c^2}</math> times the amount of energy released.'''

We don't have to give the units any more, since everything is now dimensionally correct.

::There is a very interesting analogy with the discovery of [[Maxwell's Equations]]. Maxwell found an interesting relationship involving the fundamental constants <math>\epsilon\,</math> and <math>\mu\,</math> appearing in his equations. Specifically, <math>\epsilon\mu\,</math> has the dimensions of seconds squared divided by meters squared, and that:

:::::<math>\frac{1}{\epsilon\mu} = c^2</math>

::where "c" was the known velocity of light. He also showed that his equations predict electromagnetic waves, propagating at that speed.

This sort of inductive approach is a common way that scientific discoveries are made. For example, Newton's law of motion, F=ma, is empirical and backed up by enormous amounts of confirming data.

The formula E=mc² '''could have''' been discovered this way in our alternative universe, but, as stated above, that is not historically how it happened. It was formulated on theoretical grounds in order to obtain conservation of momentum in relativistic interactions, and then confirmed by experiment.

==See also==
[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]

[[essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:science]]
[[Category:Bible]]

E=mc²

2012-03-29T14:17:05Z

JudyJ: Fix edit conflict with AugustO. I rewrote the whole thing last night, but editing had been turned off at 11:30. So I had to wait.

'''E=mc²''' is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement that purports to relate all matter to light.<ref>The equation claims that the total energy ''E'' of a body in all forms is equal to that body's mass ''m'' multiplied by the square of the speed of light ''c''. The equation only holds true if [[SI]] units are used, hence ''E'' is measured in [[joule]]s, ''m'' in [[kilogram|kilograms]] and ''c'' in [[metre]]s per [[second]]. In other systems of units an additional [[constant]] of proportionality would be required.</ref> In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (''i.e.'', gravity) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc² is [[liberal]] claptrap.

[[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]] predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]].

[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the force of [[gravity]]. In contrast, the intrinsic [[energy]] of an object (such as an [[atom]]) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]].

For more than a century, the claim that '''E=mc²''' has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "[[energy]]" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the [[lamestream media]]. There have been attempts to find some justification for the equation in already understood processes involved in [[nuclear power]] generation and [[nuclear weapon]]s, and in the speculation about [[antimatter]].<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html Peter Tyson ''The Legacy of E=mc²''] October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''. </ref> The energy released in matter/antimatter annihilations corresponds to E=mc2; for example the annihilation of an electron and a positron (each with rest energy of 0.511 mega electron volts according to E=mc2) results in the release of two [[gamma ray]] [[photon]]s, which each have energy 0.511 mega electron volts.<ref>[http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Antimatter.html Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory] ''The ABC of Nuclear Science''</ref>

The [[Theory of Relativity]] has never been able to mathematically derive '''E=mc²''' from first principles, and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H Eugene Hecht: ''How Einstein confirmed E0=mc²''], American Journal of Physics, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp. 591-600 (2011)</ref>

It has been known for a long time that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by [[Henri Poincare]] in 1904,<ref>[http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540 Herbert E. Ives ''Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation''], JOSA, Vol. 42, Issue 8, pp. 540-543 (1952)</ref> but the equation '''E=mc²''' makes a claim far beyond that limited circumstance:

{{cquote|The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).|||Herbert Ives, 1952}}

== Description for the layman ==
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms '''E=mc²''':<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html Lexi Krock, David Levin (editors) ''E=mc² explained''], June, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''. </ref>{{cquote|''Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.''|||Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University}}{{cquote|''You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.''|||Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University}}{{
cquote|''It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.''|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}

== History of '''E=mc²''' ==

The [[liberal]] [[Public Broadcasting Service]] explained the history of '''E=mc²''' for its NOVA series as follows:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/ancestors-einstein.html</ref>

{{cquote|Over time, [[physicist]]s became used to multiplying an object's mass by the square of its [[velocity]] (mv²) to come up with a useful indicator of its energy. If the velocity of a ball or rock was 100 mph, then they knew that the energy it carried would be proportional to its mass times 100 squared. If the velocity is raised as high as it could go, to 670 million mph, it's almost as if the ultimate energy an object will contain should be revealed when you look at its mass times c squared, or its mc².}}

==Experimental verification==
The first experimental verification for the equation was performed 1932 by a team of an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton, as a byproduct of ''"their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles"''<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/# Nobel Prize Organization]</ref> for which they were honored with the [[Nobel Prize]] in physics in 1951. The idea of the mass defect - and its calculation using ''E=mc²'' can be found on page 169-170 of his Nobel lecture.<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf John D. Cockroft ''Experiments on the interaction of high-speed nucleons with atomic nuclei''], Nobel Lecture, Dec 11, 1951</ref>

They bombarded [[Lithium]] atoms with [[protons]] having a [[kinetic energy]] less than 1 [[Electron-Volts|MeV]]. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[α-particle]]s, for which the [[kinetic energy]] was measured as 17.3 MeV

:::::<math>{}_3^7\mathrm{Li}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}\,\rightarrow\,2\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math>

The mass of the particles on the left hand side is 8.0263 [[atomic mass units|amu]]s, the mass on the right hand side ''only'' 8.0077 amu.<ref>Gerard Piel ''The age of science: what scientists learned in the 20th century'', Basic Books, 2001, p. 144-145</ref> The difference between this masses is .00186 amu, which results in the following back-of-an-envelope calculation:

::::<math>0.00186\,\mathrm{amu} \cdot c^2 = 0.0186 \cdot 1.66 \cdot 10^{-27}\,\mathrm{kg}\cdot\left(3\cdot10^8\,\mathrm{\frac{m}{s}}\right)^2</math>
::::<math>\approx\,2.79\cdot 10^{-12} \,\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}</math>
::::<math>\approx \,17.3\,\mathrm{MeV}</math>

Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:

Probably the best empirical verification of '''E=mc2''' was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in ''Nature''<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Simon Rainville, James K. Thompson, et. al ''World Year of Physics: A direct test of E=mc²''] Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref>, as the authors write in their abstract:
{{cquote|Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1-?mc²/E=(-1.4±4.4)×10-7, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described.}}

==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==

For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc². (The equation applies to '''all''' interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc² applies only to nuclear interactions.)

The [[Theory of Relativity]] played no role in this work, but later tried to retrofit the theory to the data in order to explain the explain the observed mass changes. Here is the most famous example of the mass change.

Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by [[Otto Hahn]] and [[Fritz Strassmann]], and analyzed by [[Lise Meitner]], in 1938.

The decay path of [[Uranium]] that figured in the ''Hahn-Strassmann experiment'' may have been this:

:235U → 140Xe + 91Sr + 4n

(The [[Xenon]] decayed within about a minute to 140Ba. There are a large number of fission paths and fission products, but Hahn and Strassmann were searching for the chemical signature of [[Barium]].)

The masses of the particles are:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! Substance
! 235U
! 140Xe
! 91Sr
! 4 neutrons
|-
| Number of protons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Number of neutrons
| 235
| 140
| 91
| 4
|-
| Number of electrons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Mass
| 235.04393
| 139.92164
| 90.910203
| 4.03466
|}

The mass of the Uranium atom is 235.04393, and the sum of the masses of the products is 234.866503. The difference is .177427 amu, or, using the E=mc² equation, 165 million electron volts. (The generally accepted value for the total energy released by Uranium fission, including secondary decays, is about 200 million electron volts.)

The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc² equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

==A Topical Example: Speed of Extremely Energetic Neutrinos==
Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. Recently there has been quite a controversy over whether neutrinos were observed traveling at a speed faster than light. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel ''at'' the speed of light. This very issue came up on the [[Talk:Main_Page#Neutrinos]]. The speeds under discussion were calculated by the use of E=mc2.

The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10-36kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc2. If we don't accept that, we have to do the calculations under classical physics, using SI (meter/kilogram/second) units.) The neutrinos were accelerated to an energy of about 17GeV, or .27x10-8Joules. Using the classical formula <math>\mathrm{E} = \frac{1}{2}mv^2</math>, we get v=110x1012meters per second. This is about 370,000 times the speed of light.
However, the classical formula breaks down at speeds close to <math>c</math>, and indeed, as the speed of a massive object approaches <math>c</math>, the object's kinetic energy approaches <math>+\infty</math>.

Several scientists have gone on record stating that the neutrinos, which have mass, travel at precisely the speed of light. If true, this disproves the [[Theory of Relativity]] and the claim that '''E=mc2'''. However, it is more likely that those scientists are using language inaccurately. It is impossible to measure the speed of neutrinos precisely. What is meant is the difference between the speed of light and the speed of the neutrinos is too small to measure.

==Deducing the Equation From Empirical Observation==

While the equation was historically developed on theoretical grounds as an inevitable consequence of special relativity, it is possible to deduce it purely from empirical observation.

So, for the purposes of this section, imagine that one is in the era of "classical physics"; prior to 1900 or so. Relativity has not been invented, but, inexplicably, nuclear physics has. Imagine that the phenomena of radioactivity and nuclear fission have been observed, without any knowledge of relativity.

A well-accepted physical law of classical physics was the law of conservation of mass. This was not easy to deduce. It required careful analysis of such phenomena as combustion, in the 1700's, to eliminate the various confounding sub-phenomena that made the law difficult to see. But, by 1900, the law was well established:

::*'''In all interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''

For example, the mass of a TNT molecule is 227.1311 Daltons, or 227.1311 g/mol, which is, for all practical purposes, the same as the mass of its constituent Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen atoms. It is essentially impossible to measure the difference. The principle of conservation of mass is upheld.

But when nuclear phenomena are discovered, we notice something different. The masses of the result particles after an event (e.g. alpha decay, nuclear fission, or artificial transmutation) is measurably less than the masses of the original particle(s). With the invention of the mass spectrometer around 1920, it became possible to measure atomic weights of various isotopes with great precision.

Radium-226 decays into Radon-222 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 4.78 MeV.

1 kg of Radium-226 = <math>\frac{.60221413 \times 10^{27}}{226.0254}</math> atoms. (The numerator is Avogadro's number, and the denominator is the atomic weight of Radium-226.) This is 2.6643648 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Radon-222 atoms has mass .98226836 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01770864 kg.
The mass lost is .00002299 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 4.78 MeV, or 4.78 * .16021765 * 10-18 Joules. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of radium is 2.040 * 1012 Joules.

Also, Radon-222 decays into Polonium-218 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 5.49 MeV.

1 kg of Radon-222 = <math>\frac{.60221413 \times 10^{27}}{222.0176}</math> atoms. This is 2.7124612 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Polonium-218 atoms has mass .98194455 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .018028315 kg.

The mass lost is .00002713 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 5.49 MeV. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of polonium is 2.386 * 1012 Joules.

It looks as though we have to rewrite the law of conservation of mass:

For the Cockcroft-Walton experiment, we us Avogadro's number of particles. The mass of that many of the various atoms, in kilograms, is just their atomic mass. Avogadro's number of Lithium-7 atoms weighs 7.01600455 kg. The Hydrogen atoms weigh 1.007825032 kg, and the Helium atoms weigh 4.00260325 kg each. The atoms weigh 8.023829582 kg before, and 8.0052065 kg after. The mass lost is .018623082 kg.

The energy released is 17.3 MeV per reaction, or 1669 * 10-12 Joules per Avogadro's number.

It looks as though we have to rewrite the law of conservation of mass:

::*'''In all "ordinary" interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''
::*'''In nuclear interactions, there is a small but measurable loss of mass.'''

:By the way, we can clearly see that atomic weights of pure isotopes are not integers, and that it has something to do with the energy released by nuclear disintegration. In retrospect, the formula E=mc² explains the non-integer character of atomic weights.

Making special cases out of nuclear interaction versus non-nuclear ones is unsatisfactory, of course.

We do this for a few other interactions, including the explosion of TNT. This would include many other radioactive decays, and the Uranium fission phenomena described above. We won't bother with the details.

As observational scientists, we look for patterns in the behavior of nature. We make a table:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! interaction
! energy released per kg, Joules
! mass lost per kg of original substance, kg
|-
| explosion of TNT
| 4.184 * 106
| seems to be zero
|-
| alpha decay of Ra-226
| 2.040 * 1012
| .00002299 kg
|-
| alpha decay of Rn-222
| 2.386 * 1012
| .00002713 kg
|-
| Cockcroft-Walton experiment, per Avogadro
| 1669 * 1012
| .018623082 kg
|}

We plot these, and a few others, not shown, on graph paper, and find to our amazement that the relationship is linear.

For Radium decay, m/E = .1126 * 10-16
For Polonium decay, m/E = .1137 * 10-16
For the Cockcroft-Walton experiment, m/E = .1116 * 10-16
As a linear relationship, the mass defect for TNT would have been .47 * 10-10. We couldn't possibly have measured this.

So we can rewrite the rule for conservation of mass in a more satisfactory way:

::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to about .112 * 10-16 kg per Joule of energy released.'''

What we thought was exact conservation is just very nearly exact, and we hadn't been able to measure it before.

But maybe there's more. This constant has dimensions of kilograms per Joule. From high-school physics, we know that that is seconds squared divided by meters squared. That is, it is the reciprocal of the square of a velocity. We calculate that velocity. It is about 2.97 * 108 meters per second. Very close to the speed of light! Very interesting! (The calculations above were not extremely precise. The formula has been verified with great precision, but not here.)

Since we are just making empirical observations, we don't understand why this is so (that will have to wait for the invention of relativity), but we can formulate a hypothesis:

::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to <math>\frac{1}{c^2}</math> times the amount of energy released.'''

We don't have to give the units any more, since everything is now dimensionally correct.

::There is a very interesting analogy with the discovery of [[Maxwell's Equations]]. Maxwell found an interesting relationship involving the fundamental constants <math>\epsilon\,</math> and <math>\mu\,</math> appearing in his equations. Specifically, <math>\epsilon\mu\,</math> has the dimensions of seconds squared divided by meters squared, and that:

:::::<math>\frac{1}{\epsilon\mu} = c^2</math>

::where "c" was the known velocity of light. He also showed that his equations predict electromagnetic waves, propagating at that speed.

This sort of inductive approach is a common way that scientific discoveries are made. For example, Newton's law of motion, F=ma, is empirical and backed up by enormous amounts of confirming data.

The formula E=mc² '''could have''' been discovered this way in our alternative universe, but, as stated above, that is not historically how it happened. It was formulated on theoretical grounds in order to obtain conservation of momentum in relativistic interactions, and then confirmed by experiment.

==See also==
[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]

[[essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:science]]
[[Category:Bible]]

E=mc²

2012-03-29T14:09:23Z

JudyJ: Add Cockrodt-Walton to the "empirical observation" analysis

'''E=mc²''' is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement that purports to relate all matter to light.<ref>The equation claims that the total energy ''E'' of a body in all forms is equal to that body's mass ''m'' multiplied by the square of the speed of light ''c''. The equation only holds true if [[SI]] units are used, hence ''E'' is measured in [[joule]]s, ''m'' in [[kilogram|kilograms]] and ''c'' in [[metre]]s per [[second]]. In other systems of units an additional [[constant]] of proportionality would be required.</ref> In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (''i.e.'', gravity) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc² is [[liberal]] claptrap.

[[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]] predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]].

[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the force of [[gravity]]. In contrast, the intrinsic [[energy]] of an object (such as an [[atom]]) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]].

For more than a century, the claim that '''E=mc²''' has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "[[energy]]" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the [[lamestream media]]. There have been attempts to find some justification for the equation in already understood processes involved in [[nuclear power]] generation and [[nuclear weapon]]s, and in the speculation about [[antimatter]].<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html Peter Tyson ''The Legacy of E=mc²''] October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''. </ref> The energy released in matter/antimatter annihilations corresponds to E=mc2; for example the annihilation of an electron and a positron (each with rest energy of 0.511 mega electron volts according to E=mc2) results in the release of two [[gamma ray]] [[photon]]s, which each have energy 0.511 mega electron volts.<ref>[http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Antimatter.html Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory] ''The ABC of Nuclear Science''</ref>

The [[Theory of Relativity]] has never been able to mathematically derive '''E=mc²''' from first principles, and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H Eugene Hecht: ''How Einstein confirmed E0=mc²''], American Journal of Physics, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp. 591-600 (2011)</ref>

It has been known for a long time that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by [[Henri Poincare]] in 1904,<ref>[http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540 Herbert E. Ives ''Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation''], JOSA, Vol. 42, Issue 8, pp. 540-543 (1952)</ref> but the equation '''E=mc²''' makes a claim far beyond that limited circumstance:

{{cquote|The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).|||Herbert Ives, 1952}}

== Description for the layman ==
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms '''E=mc²''':<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html Lexi Krock, David Levin (editors) ''E=mc² explained''], June, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''. </ref>{{cquote|''Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.''|||Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University}}{{cquote|''You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.''|||Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University}}{{
cquote|''It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.''|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}

== History of '''E=mc²''' ==

The [[liberal]] [[Public Broadcasting Service]] explained the history of '''E=mc²''' for its NOVA series as follows:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/ancestors-einstein.html</ref>

{{cquote|Over time, [[physicist]]s became used to multiplying an object's mass by the square of its [[velocity]] (mv²) to come up with a useful indicator of its energy. If the velocity of a ball or rock was 100 mph, then they knew that the energy it carried would be proportional to its mass times 100 squared. If the velocity is raised as high as it could go, to 670 million mph, it's almost as if the ultimate energy an object will contain should be revealed when you look at its mass times c squared, or its mc².}}

==Experimental verification==
The first experimental verification for the equation was performed 1932 by a team of an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton, as a byproduct of ''"their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles"''<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/# Nobel Prize Organization]</ref> for which they were honored with the [[Nobel Prize]] in physics in 1951. The idea of the mass defect - and its calculation using ''E=mc²'' can be found on page 169-170 of his Nobel lecture.<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf John D. Cockroft ''Experiments on the interaction of high-speed nucleons with atomic nuclei''], Nobel Lecture, Dec 11, 1951</ref>

They bombarded [[Lithium]] atoms with [[protons]] having a [[kinetic energy]] less than 1 [[Electron-Volts|MeV]]. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[α-particle]]s, for which the [[kinetic energy]] was measured as 17.3 MeV

:::::<math>{}_3^7\mathrm{Li}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}\,\rightarrow\,2\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math>

The mass of the particles on the left hand side is 8.0263 [[atomic mass units|amu]]s, the mass on the right hand side ''only'' 8.0077 amu.<ref>Gerard Piel ''The age of science: what scientists learned in the 20th century'', Basic Books, 2001, p. 144-145</ref> The difference between this masses is .00186 amu, which results in the following back-of-an-envelope calculation:

::::<math>0.00186\,\mathrm{amu} \cdot c^2 = 0.0186 \cdot 1.66 \cdot 10^{-27}\,\mathrm{kg}\cdot\left(3\cdot10^8\,\mathrm{\frac{m}{s}}\right)^2</math>
::::<math>\approx\,2.79\cdot 10^{-12} \,\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}</math>
::::<math>\approx \,17.3\,\mathrm{MeV}</math>

Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:

Some claim that the best empirical verification of '''E=mc2''' was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in ''Nature'' (which is not a leading physics journal).<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref> The authors state in their article in ''Nature'' magazine that "Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1-?mc²/E=(-1.4±4.4)×10-7, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described."

==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==

For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc². (The equation applies to '''all''' interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc² applies only to nuclear interactions.)

The [[Theory of Relativity]] played no role in this work, but later tried to retrofit the theory to the data in order to explain the explain the observed mass changes. Here is the most famous example of the mass change.

Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by [[Otto Hahn]] and [[Fritz Strassmann]], and analyzed by [[Lise Meitner]], in 1938.

The decay path of [[Uranium]] that figured in the ''Hahn-Strassmann experiment'' may have been this:

:235U → 140Xe + 91Sr + 4n

(The [[Xenon]] decayed within about a minute to 140Ba. There are a large number of fission paths and fission products, but Hahn and Strassmann were searching for the chemical signature of [[Barium]].)

The masses of the particles are:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! Substance
! 235U
! 140Xe
! 91Sr
! 4 neutrons
|-
| Number of protons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Number of neutrons
| 235
| 140
| 91
| 4
|-
| Number of electrons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Mass
| 235.04393
| 139.92164
| 90.910203
| 4.03466
|}

The mass of the Uranium atom is 235.04393, and the sum of the masses of the products is 234.866503. The difference is .177427 amu, or, using the E=mc² equation, 165 million electron volts. (The generally accepted value for the total energy released by Uranium fission, including secondary decays, is about 200 million electron volts.)

The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc² equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

==A Topical Example: Speed of Extremely Energetic Neutrinos==
Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. Recently there has been quite a controversy over whether neutrinos were observed traveling at a speed faster than light. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel ''at'' the speed of light. This very issue came up on the [[Talk:Main_Page#Neutrinos]]. The speeds under discussion were calculated by the use of E=mc2.

The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10-36kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc2. If we don't accept that, we have to do the calculations under classical physics, using SI (meter/kilogram/second) units.) The neutrinos were accelerated to an energy of about 17GeV, or .27x10-8Joules. Using the classical formula <math>\mathrm{E} = \frac{1}{2}mv^2</math>, we get v=110x1012meters per second. This is about 370,000 times the speed of light.
However, the classical formula breaks down at speeds close to <math>c</math>, and indeed, as the speed of a massive object approaches <math>c</math>, the object's kinetic energy approaches <math>+\infty</math>.

Several scientists have gone on record stating that the neutrinos, which have mass, travel at precisely the speed of light. If true, this disproves the [[Theory of Relativity]] and the claim that '''E=mc2'''. However, it is more likely that those scientists are using language inaccurately. It is impossible to measure the speed of neutrinos precisely. What is meant is the difference between the speed of light and the speed of the neutrinos is too small to measure.

==Deducing the Equation From Empirical Observation==

While the equation was historically developed on theoretical grounds as an inevitable consequence of special relativity, it is possible to deduce it purely from empirical observation.

So, for the purposes of this section, imagine that one is in the era of "classical physics"; prior to 1900 or so. Relativity has not been invented, but, inexplicably, nuclear physics has. Imagine that the phenomena of radioactivity and nuclear fission have been observed, without any knowledge of relativity.

A well-accepted physical law of classical physics was the law of conservation of mass. This was not easy to deduce. It required careful analysis of such phenomena as combustion, in the 1700's, to eliminate the various confounding sub-phenomena that made the law difficult to see. But, by 1900, the law was well established:

::*'''In all interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''

For example, the mass of a TNT molecule is 227.1311 Daltons, or 227.1311 g/mol, which is, for all practical purposes, the same as the mass of its constituent Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen atoms. It is essentially impossible to measure the difference. The principle of conservation of mass is upheld.

But when nuclear phenomena are discovered, we notice something different. The masses of the result particles after an event (e.g. alpha decay, nuclear fission, or artificial transmutation) is measurably less than the masses of the original particle(s). With the invention of the mass spectrometer around 1920, it became possible to measure atomic weights of various isotopes with great precision.

Radium-226 decays into Radon-222 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 4.78 MeV.

1 kg of Radium-226 = <math>\frac{.60221413 \times 10^{27}}{226.0254}</math> atoms. (The numerator is Avogadro's number, and the denominator is the atomic weight of Radium-226.) This is 2.6643648 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Radon-222 atoms has mass .98226836 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01770864 kg.
The mass lost is .00002299 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 4.78 MeV, or 4.78 * .16021765 * 10-18 Joules. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of radium is 2.040 * 1012 Joules.

Also, Radon-222 decays into Polonium-218 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 5.49 MeV.

1 kg of Radon-222 = <math>\frac{.60221413 \times 10^{27}}{222.0176}</math> atoms. This is 2.7124612 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Polonium-218 atoms has mass .98194455 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .018028315 kg.

The mass lost is .00002713 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 5.49 MeV. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of polonium is 2.386 * 1012 Joules.

It looks as though we have to rewrite the law of conservation of mass:

For the Cockcroft-Walton experiment, we us Avogadro's number of particles. The mass of that many of the various atoms, in kilograms, is just their atomic mass. Avogadro's number of Lithium-7 atoms weighs 7.01600455 kg. The Hydrogen atoms weigh 1.007825032 kg, and the Helium atoms weigh 4.00260325 kg each. The atoms weigh 8.023829582 kg before, and 8.0052065 kg after. The mass lost is .018623082 kg.

The energy released is 17.3 MeV per reaction, or 1669 * 10-12 Joules per Avogadro's number.

It looks as though we have to rewrite the law of conservation of mass:

::*'''In all "ordinary" interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''
::*'''In nuclear interactions, there is a small but measurable loss of mass.'''

:By the way, we can clearly see that atomic weights of pure isotopes are not integers, and that it has something to do with the energy released by nuclear disintegration. In retrospect, the formula E=mc² explains the non-integer character of atomic weights.

Making special cases out of nuclear interaction versus non-nuclear ones is unsatisfactory, of course.

We do this for a few other interactions, including the explosion of TNT. This would include many other radioactive decays, and the Uranium fission phenomena described above. We won't bother with the details.

As observational scientists, we look for patterns in the behavior of nature. We make a table:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! interaction
! energy released per kg, Joules
! mass lost per kg of original substance, kg
|-
| explosion of TNT
| 4.184 * 106
| seems to be zero
|-
| alpha decay of Ra-226
| 2.040 * 1012
| .00002299 kg
|-
| alpha decay of Rn-222
| 2.386 * 1012
| .00002713 kg
|-
| Cockcroft-Walton experiment, per Avogadro
| 1669 * 1012
| .018623082 kg
|}

We plot these, and a few others, not shown, on graph paper, and find to our amazement that the relationship is linear.

For Radium decay, m/E = .1126 * 10-16
For Polonium decay, m/E = .1137 * 10-16
For the Cockcroft-Walton experiment, m/E = .1116 * 10-16
As a linear relationship, the mass defect for TNT would have been .47 * 10-10. We couldn't possibly have measured this.

So we can rewrite the rule for conservation of mass in a more satisfactory way:

::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to about .112 * 10-16 kg per Joule of energy released.'''

What we thought was exact conservation is just very nearly exact, and we hadn't been able to measure it before.

But maybe there's more. This constant has dimensions of kilograms per Joule. From high-school physics, we know that that is seconds squared divided by meters squared. That is, it is the reciprocal of the square of a velocity. We calculate that velocity. It is about 2.97 * 108 meters per second. Very close to the speed of light! Very interesting! (The calculations above were not extremely precise. The formula has been verified with great precision, but not here.)

Since we are just making empirical observations, we don't understand why this is so (that will have to wait for the invention of relativity), but we can formulate a hypothesis:

::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to <math>\frac{1}{c^2}</math> times the amount of energy released.'''

We don't have to give the units any more, since everything is now dimensionally correct.

::There is a very interesting analogy with the discovery of [[Maxwell's Equations]]. Maxwell found an interesting relationship involving the fundamental constants <math>\epsilon\,</math> and <math>\mu\,</math> appearing in his equations. Specifically, <math>\epsilon\mu\,</math> has the dimensions of seconds squared divided by meters squared, and that:

:::::<math>\frac{1}{\epsilon\mu} = c^2</math>

::where "c" was the known velocity of light. He also showed that his equations predict electromagnetic waves, propagating at that speed.

This sort of inductive approach is a common way that scientific discoveries are made. For example, Newton's law of motion, F=ma, is empirical and backed up by enormous amounts of confirming data.

The formula E=mc² '''could have''' been discovered this way in our alternative universe, but, as stated above, that is not historically how it happened. It was formulated on theoretical grounds in order to obtain conservation of momentum in relativistic interactions, and then confirmed by experiment.

==See also==
[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]

[[essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:science]]
[[Category:Bible]]

E=mc²

2012-03-28T13:58:34Z

JudyJ: link

'''E=mc2''' is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement that purports to relate [all matter to light.<ref>The equation claims that the total energy ''E'' of a body in all forms is equal to that body's mass ''m'' multiplied by the square of the speed of light ''c''. The equation only holds true if [[SI]] units are used, hence ''E'' is measured in [[joule]]s, ''m'' in [[kilogram|kilograms]] and ''c'' in [[metre]]s per [[second]]. In other systems of units an additional [[constant]] of proportionality would be required.</ref> In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (''i.e.'', gravity) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc2 is [[liberal]] claptrap.

[[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]] predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]].

[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of [[gravity]].{{fact}} In contrast, the intrinsic [[energy]] of an object (such as an [[atom]]) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]].

For more than a century, the claim that '''E=mc2''' has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "[[energy]]" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the [[lamestream media]]. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in [[nuclear power]] generation and [[nuclear weapon]]s, and in the study of [[antimatter]].<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc2." October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref>

The [[Theory of Relativity]] has never been able to derive '''E=mc2''', and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H</ref>

One aspect of the formula is that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by [[Henri Poincare]] in 1904:<ref>http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540</ref>

{{cquote|The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).|||Herbert Ives, 1952}}

== Description for the layman ==
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms '''E=mc2''':<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>{{cquote|''Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.''|||Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University}}{{cquote|''You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.''|||Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University}}{{
cquote|''It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.''|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}

== History of '''E=mc2''' ==

The [[liberal]] [[Public Broadcasting Service]] explained the history of '''E=mc2''' for its NOVA series as follows:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/ancestors-einstein.html</ref>

{{cquote|Over time, [[physicist]]s became used to multiplying an object's mass by the square of its [[velocity]] (mv2) to come up with a useful indicator of its energy. If the velocity of a ball or rock was 100 mph, then they knew that the energy it carried would be proportional to its mass times 100 squared. If the velocity is raised as high as it could go, to 670 million mph, it's almost as if the ultimate energy an object will contain should be revealed when you look at its mass times c squared, or its mc2.}}

==Experimental verification==
The first experimental verification for the equation was performed 1932 by a team of an English and an Irish physicist, [[John Cockcroft]] and [[Ernest Walton]], as a byproduct of ''"their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles"''<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/# Nobel Prize Organization]</ref> for which they were honored with the [[Nobel Prize]] in physics in 1951. The idea of the mass defect - and its calculation using ''E=mc²'' can be found on page 169-170 of his Nobel lecture.<ref>http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf</ref>

They bombarded [[Lithium]] atoms with [[protons]] having a [[kinetic energy]] less than 1 [[Electron-Volts|MeV]]. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[α-particle]]s, for which the [[kinetic energy]] was measured as 17.3 MeV

:::::<math>{}_3\mathrm{Li}^7\, +\, {}_1\mathrm{H}^1\,\rightarrow\,2\, {}_2\mathrm{He}^4</math>

The mass of the particles on the left hand side is 8.0263 [[atomic mass units|amu]]s, the mass on the right hand side ''only'' 8.0077 amu.<ref>Gerard Piel ''The age of science: what scientists learned in the 20th century'', Basic Books, 2001, p. 144-145</ref> The difference between this masses is .00186 amu, which results in the following back-of-an-envelope calculation:

::::<math>0.00186\,\mathrm{amu} \cdot c^2 = 0.0186 \cdot 1.66 \cdot 10^{-27}\,\mathrm{kg}\cdot\left(3\cdot10^8\,\mathrm{\frac{m}{s}}\right)^2</math>
::::<math>\approx\,2.79\cdot 10^{-12} \,\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}</math>
::::<math>\approx \,17.3\,\mathrm{MeV}</math>

Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:

Some claim that the best empirical verification of '''E=mc2''' was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in ''Nature'' (which is not a leading physics journal).<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref> The authors state in their article in ''Nature'' magazine that "Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10−7, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described."

==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==

For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc². (The equation applies to '''all''' interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc² applies only to nuclear interactions.)

The [[Theory of Relativity]] played no role in this work, but later tried to retrofit the theory to the data in order to explain the explain the observed mass changes. Here is the most famous example of the mass change.

Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by [[Otto Hahn]] and [[Fritz Strassman]], and analyzed by [[Lise Meitner]], in 1938.

The decay path of [[Uranium]] that figured in the ''Hahn-Strassmann experiment'' may have been this:

:235U → 140Xe + 91Sr + 4n

(The [[Xenon]] decayed within about a minute to 140Ba. There are a large number of fission paths and fission products, but they were searching for the chemical signature of [[Barium]].)

The masses of the particles are:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! Substance
! 235U
! 140Xe
! 91Sr
! 4 neutrons
|-
| Number of protons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Number of neutrons
| 235
| 140
| 91
| 4
|-
| Number of electrons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Mass
| 235.04393
| 139.92164
| 90.910203
| 4.03466
|}

The mass of the Uranium atom is 235.04393, and the sum of the masses of the products is 234.866503. The difference is .177427 amu, or, using the E=mc² equation, 165 million electron volts. (The generally accepted value for the total energy released by Uranium fission, including secondary decays, is about 200 million electron volts.)

The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc² equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

==A Topical Example: Speed of Extremely Energetic Neutrinos==
Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. Recently there has been quite a controversy over whether neutrinos were observed traveling at a speed faster than light. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel ''at'' the speed of light. This very issue came up on the [[Talk:Main_Page#Neutrinos]]. The speeds under discussion were calculated by the use of E=mc2.

The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10-36kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc2. If we don't accept that, we have to do the calculations under classical physics, using SI (meter/kilogram/second) units.) The neutrinos were accelerated to an energy of about 17GeV, or .27x10-8Joules. Using the classical formula <math>\mathrm{E} = \frac{1}{2}mv^2</math>, we get v=110x1012meters per second. This is about 370,000 times the speed of light.
However, the classical formula breaks down at speeds close to <math>c</math>, and indeed, as the speed of a massive object approaches <math>c</math>, the object's kinetic energy approaches <math>+\infty</math>.

Several scientists have gone on record stating that the neutrinos, which have mass, travel at precisely the speed of light. If true, this disproves the [[Theory of Relativity]] and the claim that '''E=mc2'''. However, it is more likely that those scientists are using language inaccurately. It is impossible to measure the speed of neutrinos precisely. What is meant is the difference between the speed of light and the speed of the neutrinos is too small to measure.

==Deducing the Equation From Empirical Observation==

While the equation was historically developed on theoretical grounds as an inevitable consequence of special relativity, it is possible to deduce it purely from empirical observation.

So, for the purposes of this section, imagine that one is in the era of "classical physics"; prior to 1900 or so. Relativity has not been invented, but, inexplicably, nuclear physics has. Imagine that the phenomena of radioactivity and nuclear fission have been observed, without any knowledge of relativity.

A well-accepted physical law of classical physics was the law of conservation of mass. This was not easy to deduce. It required careful analysis of such phenomena as combustion, in the 1700's, to eliminate the various confounding sub-phenomena that made the law difficult to see. But, by 1900, the law was well established:

:::*'''In all interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''

For example, the mass of a TNT molecule is 227.1311 Daltons, or 227.1311 g/mol, which is, for all practical purposes, the same as the mass of its constituent Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen atoms. It is essentially impossible to measure the difference. The principle of conservation of mass is upheld.

But when nuclear phenomena are discovered, we notice something different. The masses of the result particles after an event (e.g. alpha decay, nuclear fission, or artificial transmutation) is measurably less than the masses of the original particle(s). With the invention of the mass spectrometer around 1920, it became possible to measure atomic weights of various isotopes with great precision.

Radium-226 decays into Radon-222 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 4.78 MeV.

1 kg of Radium-226 = <math>\frac{.622 \times 10^{27}}{226.0254}</math> atoms. (The numerator is Avogadro's number, and the denominator is the atomic weight of Radium-226.) This is 2.6643647 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Radon-222 atoms has mass .98226836 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01770863 kg.
The mass lost is .00002301 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 4.78 MeV, or 4.78 * .1602 * 10-18 Joules. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of radium is 2.04 * 1012 Joules.

Also, Radon-222 decays into Polonium-218 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 5.49 MeV.

1 kg of Radon-222 = <math>\frac{.622 \times 10^{27}}{222.0176}</math> atoms. This is 2.7124611 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Polonium-218 atoms has mass .98194467 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01802830 kg.

The mass lost is .00002703 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 5.49 MeV. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of polonium is 2.39 * 1012 Joules.

It looks as thought we have to rewrite the law of conservation of mass:

:::*'''In all "ordinary" interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''
:::*'''In nuclear interactions, there is a small but measurable loss of mass.'''

:By the way, we can clearly see that atomic weights of pure isotopes are not integers, and that it has something to do with the energy released by nuclear disintegration. In retrospect, the formula E=mc^2 explains the non-integer character of atomic weights.

Making special cases like this is unsatisfactory, of course.

We do this for a few other interactions, including the explosion of TNT. This would include the Lithium-plus-Hydrogen and Uranium fission phenomena described above. We won't bother with the details. As observational scientists, we look for patterns in the behavior of nature. We make a table:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! interaction
! energy released per kg, Joules
! mass lost per kg of original substance, kg
|-
| explosion of TNT
| 4.184 * 106
| seems to be zero
|-
| alpha decay of Ra-226
| 2.04 * 1012
| .00002301 kg
|-
| alpha decay of Rn-222
| 2.39 * 1012
| .00002703 kg
|}

We plot these, and a few others, not shown, on graph paper, and find to our amazement that the relationship is linear.

For Ra, m/E = .112794118 E-16
For Po, m/E = .113096234 E-16

If this is linear, the mass defect for TNT would have been .47 * 10-10. We couldn't possibly have measured this.

So we can rewrite the rule for conservation of mass in a more satisfactory way:

:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to about .113 * 10-16 kg per Joule of energy released.'''

What we thought was exact conservation is just very nearly exact, and we hadn't been able to measure it before.

But maybe there's more. This constant has dimensions of kilograms per Joule. From high-school physics, we know that that is seconds squared divided by meters squared. That is, it is the reciprocal of the square of a velocity. We calculate that velocity. It is about 2.97 * 108 meters per second. Very close to the speed of light! Very interesting! (The calculations above were not extremely precise. The formula has been verified with great precision, but not here.)

We don't understand why (that will have to wait for the invention of relativity), but we can formulate a hypothesis:

:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to <math>\frac{1}{c^2}</math> times the amount of energy released.'''

We don't have to give the units any more, since everything is now dimensionally correct.

::There is a very interesting analogy with the discovery of [[Maxwell's Equations]]. Maxwell found an interesting relationship involving the fundamental constants <math>\epsilon\,</math> and <math>\mu\,</math> appearing in his equations. Specifically, <math>\epsilon\mu\,</math> has the dimensions of seconds squared divided by meters squared, and that:

:::::<math>\frac{1}{\epsilon\mu} = c^2</math>

::where "c" was the known velocity of light. He also showed that his equations predict electromagnetic waves, propagating at that speed.

This is a common way that scientific discoveries are made. But, as stated above, this is not how E=mc^2 was discovered. But it could have been.

==See also==
[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]

[[essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:science]]
[[Category:Bible]]

E=mc²

2012-03-28T13:56:10Z

JudyJ: Empirical derivation, without relativity

'''E=mc2''' is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement that purports to relate [all matter to light.<ref>The equation claims that the total energy ''E'' of a body in all forms is equal to that body's mass ''m'' multiplied by the square of the speed of light ''c''. The equation only holds true if [[SI]] units are used, hence ''E'' is measured in [[joule]]s, ''m'' in [[kilogram|kilograms]] and ''c'' in [[metre]]s per [[second]]. In other systems of units an additional [[constant]] of proportionality would be required.</ref> In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (''i.e.'', gravity) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc2 is [[liberal]] claptrap.

[[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]] predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]].

[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, and is directly related to the forces of [[gravity]].{{fact}} In contrast, the intrinsic [[energy]] of an object (such as an [[atom]]) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]].

For more than a century, the claim that '''E=mc2''' has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "[[energy]]" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the [[lamestream media]]. The equation has been used as a possible explanation for process involved in [[nuclear power]] generation and [[nuclear weapon]]s, and in the study of [[antimatter]].<ref>Tyson, Peter. "The Legacy of E=mc2." October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html</ref>

The [[Theory of Relativity]] has never been able to derive '''E=mc2''', and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H</ref>

One aspect of the formula is that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by [[Henri Poincare]] in 1904:<ref>http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540</ref>

{{cquote|The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).|||Herbert Ives, 1952}}

== Description for the layman ==
Ten top physicists were asked to describe in laymen's terms '''E=mc2''':<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html</ref>{{cquote|''Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.''|||Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University}}{{cquote|''You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.''|||Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University}}{{
cquote|''It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.''|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}

== History of '''E=mc2''' ==

The [[liberal]] [[Public Broadcasting Service]] explained the history of '''E=mc2''' for its NOVA series as follows:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/ancestors-einstein.html</ref>

{{cquote|Over time, [[physicist]]s became used to multiplying an object's mass by the square of its [[velocity]] (mv2) to come up with a useful indicator of its energy. If the velocity of a ball or rock was 100 mph, then they knew that the energy it carried would be proportional to its mass times 100 squared. If the velocity is raised as high as it could go, to 670 million mph, it's almost as if the ultimate energy an object will contain should be revealed when you look at its mass times c squared, or its mc2.}}

==Experimental verification==
The first experimental verification for the equation was performed 1932 by a team of an English and an Irish physicist, [[John Cockcroft]] and [[Ernest Walton]], as a byproduct of ''"their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles"''<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/# Nobel Prize Organization]</ref> for which they were honored with the [[Nobel Prize]] in physics in 1951. The idea of the mass defect - and its calculation using ''E=mc²'' can be found on page 169-170 of his Nobel lecture.<ref>http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf</ref>

They bombarded [[Lithium]] atoms with [[protons]] having a [[kinetic energy]] less than 1 [[Electron-Volts|MeV]]. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[α-particle]]s, for which the [[kinetic energy]] was measured as 17.3 MeV

:::::<math>{}_3\mathrm{Li}^7\, +\, {}_1\mathrm{H}^1\,\rightarrow\,2\, {}_2\mathrm{He}^4</math>

The mass of the particles on the left hand side is 8.0263 [[atomic mass units|amu]]s, the mass on the right hand side ''only'' 8.0077 amu.<ref>Gerard Piel ''The age of science: what scientists learned in the 20th century'', Basic Books, 2001, p. 144-145</ref> The difference between this masses is .00186 amu, which results in the following back-of-an-envelope calculation:

::::<math>0.00186\,\mathrm{amu} \cdot c^2 = 0.0186 \cdot 1.66 \cdot 10^{-27}\,\mathrm{kg}\cdot\left(3\cdot10^8\,\mathrm{\frac{m}{s}}\right)^2</math>
::::<math>\approx\,2.79\cdot 10^{-12} \,\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}</math>
::::<math>\approx \,17.3\,\mathrm{MeV}</math>

Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:

Some claim that the best empirical verification of '''E=mc2''' was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in ''Nature'' (which is not a leading physics journal).<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref> The authors state in their article in ''Nature'' magazine that "Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10−7, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described."

==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==

For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc². (The equation applies to '''all''' interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc² applies only to nuclear interactions.)

The [[Theory of Relativity]] played no role in this work, but later tried to retrofit the theory to the data in order to explain the explain the observed mass changes. Here is the most famous example of the mass change.

Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by [[Otto Hahn]] and [[Fritz Strassman]], and analyzed by [[Lise Meitner]], in 1938.

The decay path of [[Uranium]] that figured in the ''Hahn-Strassmann experiment'' may have been this:

:235U → 140Xe + 91Sr + 4n

(The [[Xenon]] decayed within about a minute to 140Ba. There are a large number of fission paths and fission products, but they were searching for the chemical signature of [[Barium]].)

The masses of the particles are:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! Substance
! 235U
! 140Xe
! 91Sr
! 4 neutrons
|-
| Number of protons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Number of neutrons
| 235
| 140
| 91
| 4
|-
| Number of electrons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Mass
| 235.04393
| 139.92164
| 90.910203
| 4.03466
|}

The mass of the Uranium atom is 235.04393, and the sum of the masses of the products is 234.866503. The difference is .177427 amu, or, using the E=mc² equation, 165 million electron volts. (The generally accepted value for the total energy released by Uranium fission, including secondary decays, is about 200 million electron volts.)

The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc² equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

==A Topical Example: Speed of Extremely Energetic Neutrinos==
Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. Recently there has been quite a controversy over whether neutrinos were observed traveling at a speed faster than light. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel ''at'' the speed of light. This very issue came up on the [[Talk:Main_Page#Neutrinos]]. The speeds under discussion were calculated by the use of E=mc2.

The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10-36kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc2. If we don't accept that, we have to do the calculations under classical physics, using SI (meter/kilogram/second) units.) The neutrinos were accelerated to an energy of about 17GeV, or .27x10-8Joules. Using the classical formula <math>\mathrm{E} = \frac{1}{2}mv^2</math>, we get v=110x1012meters per second. This is about 370,000 times the speed of light.
However, the classical formula breaks down at speeds close to <math>c</math>, and indeed, as the speed of a massive object approaches <math>c</math>, the object's kinetic energy approaches <math>+\infty</math>.

Several scientists have gone on record stating that the neutrinos, which have mass, travel at precisely the speed of light. If true, this disproves the [[Theory of Relativity]] and the claim that '''E=mc2'''. However, it is more likely that those scientists are using language inaccurately. It is impossible to measure the speed of neutrinos precisely. What is meant is the difference between the speed of light and the speed of the neutrinos is too small to measure.

==Deducing the Equation From Empirical Observation==

While the equation was historically developed on theoretical grounds as an inevitable consequence of special relativity, it is possible to deduce it purely from empirical observation.

So, for the purposes of this section, imagine that one is in the era of "classical physics"; prior to 1900 or so. Relativity has not been invented, but, inexplicably, nuclear physics has. Imagine that the phenomena of radioactivity and nuclear fission have been observed, without any knowledge of relativity.

A well-accepted physical law of classical physics was the law of conservation of mass. This was not easy to deduce. It required careful analysis of such phenomena as combustion, in the 1700's, to eliminate the various confounding sub-phenomena that made the law difficult to see. But, by 1900, the law was well established:

:::*'''In all interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''

For example, the mass of a TNT molecule is 227.1311 Daltons, or 227.1311 g/mol, which is, for all practical purposes, the same as the mass of its constituent Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen atoms. It is essentially impossible to measure the difference. The principle of conservation of mass is upheld.

But when nuclear phenomena are discovered, we notice something different. The masses of the result particles after an event (e.g. alpha decay, nuclear fission, or artificial transmutation) is measurably less than the masses of the original particle(s). With the invention of the mass spectrometer around 1920, it became possible to measure atomic weights of various isotopes with great precision.

Radium-226 decays into Radon-222 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 4.78 MeV.

1 kg of Radium-226 = <math>\frac{.622 \times 10^{27}}{226.0254}</math> atoms. (The numerator is Avogadro's number, and the denominator is the atomic weight of Radium-226.) This is 2.6643647 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Radon-222 atoms has mass .98226836 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01770863 kg.
The mass lost is .00002301 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 4.78 MeV, or 4.78 * .1602 * 10-18 Joules. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of radium is 2.04 * 1012 Joules.

Also, Radon-222 decays into Polonium-218 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 5.49 MeV.

1 kg of Radon-222 = <math>\frac{.622 \times 10^{27}}{222.0176}</math> atoms. This is 2.7124611 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Polonium-218 atoms has mass .98194467 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01802830 kg.

The mass lost is .00002703 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 5.49 MeV. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of polonium is 2.39 * 1012 Joules.

It looks as thought we have to rewrite the law of conservation of mass:

:::*'''In all "ordinary" interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''
:::*'''In nuclear interactions, there is a small but measurable loss of mass.'''

:By the way, we can clearly see that atomic weights of pure isotopes are not integers, and that it has something to do with the energy released by nuclear disintegration. In retrospect, the formula E=mc^2 explains the non-integer character of atomic weights.

Making special cases like this is unsatisfactory, of course.

We do this for a few other interactions, including the explosion of TNT. This would include the Lithium-plus-Hydrogen and Uranium fission phenomena described above. We won't bother with the details. As observational scientists, we look for patterns in the behavior of nature. We make a table:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! interaction
! energy released per kg, Joules
! mass lost per kg of original substance, kg
|-
| explosion of TNT
| 4.184 * 106
| seems to be zero
|-
| alpha decay of Ra-226
| 2.04 * 1012
| .00002301 kg
|-
| alpha decay of Rn-222
| 2.39 * 1012
| .00002703 kg
|}

We plot these, and a few others, not shown, on graph paper, and find to our amazement that the relationship is linear.

For Ra, m/E = .112794118 E-16
For Po, m/E = .113096234 E-16

If this is linear, the mass defect for TNT would have been .47 * 10-10. We couldn't possibly have measured this.

So we can rewrite the rule for conservation of mass in a more satisfactory way:

:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to about .113 * 10-16 kg per Joule of energy released.'''

What we thought was exact conservation is just very nearly exact, and we hadn't been able to measure it before.

But maybe there's more. This constant has dimensions of kilograms per Joule. From high-school physics, we know that that is seconds squared divided by meters squared. That is, it is the reciprocal of the square of a velocity. We calculate that velocity. It is about 2.97 * 108 meters per second. Very close to the speed of light! Very interesting! (The calculations above were not extremely precise. The formula has been verified with great precision, but not here.)

We don't understand why (that will have to wait for the invention of relativity), but we can formulate a hypothesis:

:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to <math>\frac{1}{c^2}</math> times the amount of energy released.'''

We don't have to give the units any more, since everything is now dimensionally correct.

::There is a very interesting analogy with the discovery of [[Maxwell's equations]]. Maxwell found an interesting relationship involving the fundamental constants <math>\epsilon\,</math> and <math>\mu\,</math> appearing in his equations. Specifically, <math>\epsilon\mu\,</math> has the dimensions of seconds squared divided by meters squared, and that:

:::::<math>\frac{1}{\epsilon\mu} = c^2</math>

::where "c" was the known velocity of light. He also showed that his equations predict electromagnetic waves, propagating at that speed.

This is a common way that scientific discoveries are made. But, as stated above, this is not how E=mc^2 was discovered. But it could have been.

==See also==
[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]

[[essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:science]]
[[Category:Bible]]

Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-03-18T23:27:06Z

JudyJ: Rewrite #19 (standard kilogram). Complete with "editorial 'we'".

This is intended as an article rebutting the points in the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article. That article's talk page has proven to be less than satisfactory for this purpose, because it gets archived, and much of its material has degenerated into personal disputes. We believe that the two sides of the issue are better handled in two articles—this one and [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], rather than a talk page.

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

#''Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found. Sound like global warming?''
#:True, the ''direct'' searches for gravitational waves have not yet yielded any clear results, though indirect observations have been made (the Hulse/Taylor observations.) Before people dismiss indirect observations, recall that no one has ever seen an electron.
#:The Earth-based LIGO detectors have, so far, not detected any unambiguous gravitational wave signatures from such events as a black-hole merger. It is barely sensitive enough to find such things in the Milky Way or very nearby galaxies. It is being upgraded in a plan that should complete in 2014. It is hoped that, after the upgrade, it will be able to see these events clearly and unambiguously.
#:The space-based LISA detectors have not been built yet, and the original proposal has been scrapped because of budgetary problems. A new version, called "eLISA" has been proposed, and should be sensitive to events as far away as redshift 15.
#:Whether these experiments are a good use of money is another question, one that has no bearing on whether relativity is correct.
#::The objection has been raised that the experiments should not have been funded if scientists were going to ignore negative results.
#:::The results are only partly negative. The scientists knew all along that a certain amount of luck would be involved in finding a sufficiently strong signal within the time frame of the experiment. The failure so far does not mean that black-hole mergers do not emit gravitational waves; just that they haven't been lucky enough to find them. They will continue to search.
#:This has nothing to do with global warming.
#''The orbital radius of the Moon's orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts''.
#:This could be a counterexample to both GR and Newtonian gravity--in both, the radius is defined in terms of conserved quantities.
#::The objection has been raised that this would still be a counterexample to Relativity.
#:::Yes, if it were actually true that the Moon's orbit is undergoing some kind of anomalous perturbation, it would indeed be a disproof of Relativity, Newtonian mechanics, and, in fact, all of physics since Galileo.
#''The Pioneer anomaly.''
#:The "Pioneer anomaly" is the deviation in the motion of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft from their predicted motion, at the distance of Saturn and beyond. It should be noted that the anomaly is about 1000 times greater than the difference between the classical Newtonian prediction and the prediction of relativity, so this is not a problem with relativity ''per se''; it is more general than that.
#:Calculating the force caused by heat (that is, miniscule amounts of infrared radiation) from the radioactive power source was one of the first effects that was examined. The anomaly arose when this and other known effects could not fully explain the deviation.
#:The problem is believed to have been solved by taking into account the reflection of the radiation from the power source off of the back of the antenna dish<ref>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/</ref>. The solution is sometimes described as an application of "Phong shading", a technique of computer graphics that is now considered imprecise. But Phong shading itself is not what is important. The "ray tracing" computer graphics technique that underlies Phong shading was what inspired the scientists to take reflection into account.
#''Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity. The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement''.
#:This is an interesting observation. The world's best scientific minds are looking into it. That relativity is incorrect is not being taken seriously as a possible explanation.
#:'''Update:''' The problem seems to have been caused by a faulty cable connection between a computer and a GPS unit. When the connection was repaired, the travel time increased by 60 nanoseconds, which had been the amount of the anomaly <ref>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/22/technology-faster-than-light-neutrinos.html</ref> <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/22/loose-wire-led-to-stunning-faster-than-light-particle-finding/?intcmp=features</ref>.
#:The objection has been raised that a recent news report from the BBC ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is also contradictory, since neutrinos have mass and are therefore forbidden by relativity to travel at exactly the speed of light. Since the neutrino energies were 17GeV, and the current estimate for the neutrino mass is about 0.25eV, the deviation from the speed of light would be about 1 part in 1022. This means that the neutrinos would arrive at the detector about .26x10-24 seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is one quarter of a billionth of a femtosecond, or about .26x10-15 of a nanosecond. The accuracy of the GPS units and cesium clocks used in the measurement is greater than a nanosecond, so the discrepancy cannot possibly be detected. It is unfortunate that the claim "the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos" was taken so literally.
#''Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").''
#:This may be another case of the Pioneer anomaly, or it may be something else. However, it is very unlikely that it shows that relativity is wrong and Newtonian mechanics is correct.
#''Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "dark matter" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it due to the acceleration of various parts of galaxies that accelerated funny that led to dark matter (based on simple Newtonian dynamics)?
#''The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "dark energy" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:This is the dark energy/cosmological constant argument. The cosmological constant was added by Einstein after he discovered that his field equations (<math>\mathbf{G}=8\pi \mathbf{T}</math>) predicted that the universe was expanding, contradicting his firm philosophical belief in a static universe. So he inserted <math>\Lambda \mathbf{g}</math> to the LHS so that it would predict a static universe. A few years later, Hubble showed the universe to be expanding, and Einstein called the cosmological constant the worst mistake of his career. So, it sort of had a bad reputation, and people didn't want to seriously consider it, until recent observations have shown the universe's expansion to be accelerating forced them to do so. It could have had a very different history. Einstein could have had that term in the EFE's from the start, and pointed out that it would determine if the universe's expansion was accelerating (or not expanding at all!) and it would take further observation to determine its value.
#''Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.''
#:A footnote goes on to say that "In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01) ..."
#:Considering only the ''anomalous'' precession, that is, the precession that remains after all known other factors (other planets and asteroids, solar oblateness) have been accounted for, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values are:
#::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
#::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
#::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
#::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
#::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
#:These error bars, and that of the relativity formula, all overlap.
#:The formula for mechanics under general relativity is complicated, but it is not contrived or conformed. "Conformed" suggests that it was somehow adjusted or "tweaked" to match the 42.98 figure. The formula is
#:::<math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>
#:To begin to explain the formula, Newton's law of gravity, combining F = ma and <math>F = \frac{KMm}{r^2}\,</math>, is
#::<math>a = \frac{KM}{r^2}\,</math>
#:In Einstein's equation, <math>T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "stress-energy tensor", and <math>8 \pi T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> gives the density of the Sun, taking the place of <math>\frac{M}{r^2}\,</math>. <math>G_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "Einstein curvature tensor", and says how spacetime curves to create an apparent gravitational acceleration.
#:There is nothing to tweak to get a value of 42.98 arcseconds. 8 is 8. <math>\pi\,</math> is <math>\pi\,</math>. K is Newton's constant of gravitation in both formulas.
#''The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.''
#:The formulas for velocity, momentum, and mass can in fact be written in such a way that they appear to have discontinuities, just as the tangent function has discontinuities while the underlying sine and cosine functions do not. But they can also be written in a form that does not show discontinuities.
#:All particles, with or without mass, can have any value of momentum. The formula for the velocity of a particle, in terms of its mass and momentum, is
#:::<math>v = \frac{pc}{\sqrt{m^2c^2+p^2}}</math>
#:For a particle with mass, this means that momentum of zero gives a speed of zero, and, as the momentum approaches infinity, the speed approaches c.
#:For a massless particle, the speed is always c.
#''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''
#:The simple answer is, unequivocally, that it acts on the 'relativistic' mass. The question seems to relate to a simple misunderstanding of Special Relativity. Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance in the body's mass with regard to the direction of the force. Thus to a given observer, a force in any direction will operate on the same mass. However, to a different observer, this mass may be different, although still the constant with regard to the direction of the force.
#''The observed lack of curvature in overall space.''
#:What? Is has been observed
#''The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.''
#:We're still working on a quantum theory of gravity; this isn't so much a counter-example as saying that (classical)GR isn't valid in that domain.
#''The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.''
#:Special Relativity only forbids the transmission of matter, energy or information at a speed faster than light. There are plenty of other things that can move faster than light. Consider a laser on Earth which is rotating on a pivot, whose light shines onto the hull of a satellite 200,000Km away (2e8 metres). If the laser rotates at a sedentary one revolution ever four seconds, the speed of the laser beam's tip crossing the satellite's hull is 3.14e8 metres per second - faster than the speed of light. However, this is not a transfer of information. Any information is travelling from Earth to the satellite, obeying the universal speed limit. Similarly, the only information that can be transmitted by the quantum entanglement of two particles is from the originator of the particles to the two observers, not from one observer to another. Faster than light transmission of information using quantum entanglement has never been observed, nor has even conceived how such a mechanism might work.<ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612</ref>
#''The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.''
#:As an argument against relativity, there are two reasons that this is invalid (beyond simply questioning the evidential validity of the Bible):
#::a) These passages clearly refer to a [[miracle]]. A miracle, being an act of God, is not subject to the laws of physics.
#::b) It is highly debatable as to whether the verses do describe [[action-at-a-distance]] in the sense of an action whose influence travels instantaneously (and therefore faster than the speed of light). This itself may be argued from two viewpoints:
#:::i) When reading these passages, as with consideration of many apparent relativistic anomalies, the true picture of causality must be considered. In each case there are two apparent events. Event A - Jesus does something (says 'thy son liveth', says 'be it unto thee even as thou wilt', or Christ's spirit leaving His body). Event B - the apparent result (the son lives, her daughter is made whole, or the earth quakes). However, it is not the case in any of these examples that A causes B. Both A and B are caused by a third event. In the first two cases it is Christ's thought that causes the miracle and that causes His lips to announce the miracle. This thought would have occurred fractions of a second before either event, and is the non-instantaneous cause of both. In the last case it is Christ's death that is the precursor and cause of both events.
#:::ii) It must be considered that at the time when the Gospels were written, neither their authors nor their intended readers were aware of any concept of the speed of light and were unable to measure the billionths of a second difference between the events being considered here. Thus just as in modern parlance the phrase 'at the same moment' has a tolerance of milliseconds (unless specifically couched to mean otherwise) so do the various terms used by the Evangelists. They would never have considered it an important issue, and would therefore not have worried about the degree of precision.
#''The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.''
#:Gravitons are a prediction of [[Quantum Theory]], not of relativity, although the concept is an extension of the relativistic idea that forces take a finite time to be transmitted over a distance.
#:No one expects to observe gravitons. Calculations show that it is well-nigh impossible with any conceivable detector that we could build. No one is designing, funding, or building any apparatus to search for gravitons.
#:Now it happens that theoretical physicists discuss and speculate on the existence and nature of such things as gravitons as part of their theoretical work. Some of these discussions take place among scientists who receive their salaries from various government agencies that are funded by taxpayers. Whether all of the things that scientists think about, talk about, and write about constitute a good use of money is not for us to say.
#''Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do not experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity''
#:Whilst this observation is unconfirmed, if true it would still not invalidate relativity. Many things may vary with position in space, and relativity does not deny this. There is no suggestion that the fine-structure constant is different at the same point in space for observers in different non-inertial frame, as the 'counterexample' implies.
#''The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a black hole. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."''
#:When physicists encounter something puzzling, their first reaction is usually not to assume that it shows that relativity is wrong. In fact the cited article never mentions relativity at all. It is about "magnetars", a type of neutron star about which very little is known, other than their extremely strong magnetic fields.
#:Many scientific discoveries have arisen from observations that were puzzling at first. Edwin Hubble's observations of galactic redshift led to the realization that the universe is expanding isotropically. The observations by Jocelyn Bell and Antony Hewish, of periodic pulsation in the radio emissions of a star, were so puzzling at first that they seemed to suggest transmissions from intelligent extraterrestrials. They had actually discovered pulsars. When Carl Anderson saw unexplained particle tracks in a cloud chamber, he had discovered antiparticles.
#:None of these people assumed that the explanation for these observations was that relativity was wrong. They were all astrophysicists and were quite familiar with relativity. In fact, Anderson's antiparticles had been predicted by the Dirac equation, a synthesis of special relativity and the Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics, from a few years earlier.
#''The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.''
#:It is utterly baffling how anyone could make such an assertion. The insights from relativity are multitudinous. Relativity forms the basis for astronomy, cosmology, electrodynamics, and many other fields. The interconnection between the electric and magnetic forces is now seen to be a straightforward consequence of relativity. Relativity combined with quantum mechanics are the basis of all of contemporary physics.
#:The Dirac equation, which gives rise to antiparticles and the theory of spinors, was an early example of introducing relatitivity into the Schrödinger equation.
#:More generally, special relativity was combined with quantum theory to produce [[quantum field theory]] (QFT). An example of a QFT is [[quantum electrodynamics]], the most precise theory in physics. Furthermore, string theory is Lorentz invariant and produces general relativity in the low energy limit.
#''The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.''
#:We are baffled that anyone would connect this problem with relativity. The non-relativity principle of conservation of mass has been known, in general, for hundreds of years, going back to the time of the alchemists, and has been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. The principle of conservation of energy has also been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. Relativity simply generalizes this to a principle of both together, with even greater precision. So, in principle, it is recognized that the mass of the standard kilogram could change if an energy transfer took place. But no combustion, corrosion, or nuclear decay is suspected of having taken place. In any case, the amount of energy that would have to have been released is 1.25 megawatt-hours, which would certainly have been noticed.
#:Relativity does not promise uniformity of the universe any more strongly than classical physics did. The apparent change in mass of the standard kilogram is simply a mystery.
#''The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 22, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about speculation that the constant "alpha" (see item 16 above) may not be constant. It might have decreased, by 45 parts per billion, as recently (in cosmic time) as two billion years ago, based on data from the Oklo "natural fission reactor". Other measurements have been made of alpha at earlier times, such as measurement of light from distant quasars. These measurements suggest that alpha has increased by a few parts per 105 in 12 billion years.
#:There is plenty of literature on theories about change in alpha, and some of it indicates that this may be due to change in the speed of light. Specifically, the Oklo data may suggest that the speed of light may have been increasing slightly. (This is the opposite of the direction of change claimed by fundamentalists, but is much smaller in any case.)
#:Speculation on a different speed of light in the past may relate to theories of "cosmic inflation", which touches on the question of why the Cosmic Background Radiation is so nearly isotropic, which indicates a near-uniformity of temperature, which requires inflation or some equivalent mechanism.
#:None of the scientists working in this area seem to doubt the fundamental correctness of relativity.
#''"According to Einstein's view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 22, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about a very recent and exciting development in fundamental theoretical physics, generally called the "holographic principle". This proposes that our perceived 3-dimensional space actually arises from a "hologram" on a 2-dimensional space. Much has been written about this recently, including the best-selling book ''The Hidden Reality'' by Brian Greene. This hologram manifests itself in the "foamlike" ripples of spacetime, at the scale of the Planck length, which is so small that there seemed to be no way to detect it directly.
#:But it seems that some "inexplicable static" in the results of another unrelated experiment, searching for gravitational waves, may be the first hints of the holographic nature of space. If so, this is a lucky and serendipitous result.
#:Serendipitous scientific discoveries have been made many times, as when Henri Becquerel put a photographic plate in a dark drawer because the weather was cloudy, and thereby discovered radioactivity.
#:That the "foamlike" nature of space at short distances is contrary to the continuous nature presumed by classical mechanics and relativity has been known for some time. This is the problem that quantum gravity seeks to solve.
#''"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don't gel."''
#:Quoting things without explaining the context is often a bad idea, and the indicated item is a good example of this. It gives no hint of what the article from which the quote was taken is about. The article is about one scientist's contribution to the problem of unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. The scientist, Petr HoYava of Berkeley, has come up with an approach that he says eliminates the infinities that have plagued other unification attempts.
#:The two quoted sentences are HoYava's ''statement of the problem''. So it comes as no surprise that he says that there is a conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics. The very next paragraph begins:
#::The solution, HoYava says, is to snip threads that bind time to space at very high energies .... At low energies, general relativity emerges from this underlying framework ..."
#:It is well known that, just as classical mechanics emerges from quantum mechanics at non-microscopic scales, and classical mechanics emerges from relativity at low speeds, both relativity and quantum mechanics should emerge from the Grand Unified Theory (whatever that turns out to be) at the appropriate scales.
#''The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.''
#:The topology of wormholes is an interesting topic, widely discussed among theoretical physicists and mathematicians. There is much speculation about what they would be like (if they could exist at all under quantum gravity), and what kind of "cosmic censorship" or "chronology protection" theorems might make practical time travel impossible. The nature of these theorems seems to be intertwined with theories of quantum gravity and "grand unification", so the exact form of the "cosmic censorship", if it exists, can't be known until quantum mechanics and relativistic geometry are unified. It is an exciting field of research. No one believes that the "cosmic censorship" will take the form of relativity not being a true non-quantum approximation to reality.
#''The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.''
#:Since the 70's much work has been done on the subject of black hole thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973CMaPh..31..161B</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9307035v1.pdf</ref>, most notably by the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge [[Stephen Hawking]]. When quantum field theory is added to the analysis of black holes it is found that they do not possess "low entropy" (quite the opposite, in fact) and are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...7.2333B</ref>. The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article has labelled this work in a footnote as "[c]ontrived explanations", with no explanation for this characterization given.
#''Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.''
#:Please read the cited paper carefully. It is a survey of their observations over a 30 year period. They point out that their data matches general relativity to within 0.2 percent, and is now down in the "noise" of other effects, such as lack of accurate knowledge of just how far away the pulsars are, and lack of accurate knowledge of galactic constants. As they say in the abstract, "tighter bounds will be difficult to obtain." The paper, written in 2004, also notes that, because the pulsar beams are slowly tilting out of the line of sight to Earth, "A core component [of the emission] is quite prominent in the data taken in 1980-81, but it faded very significantly between 1980 and 1998 and was nearly gone by 2003."
#:That is why they are not releasing further data. 30 years is a fairly long time to watch a pair of pulsars. They're not doing the experiment any more—it did its job, and it's finished. No one drops cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa any more either.
#:The data are not diverging from the predictions.
#''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.''
#:The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses general relativity to achieve greater accuracy<ref>http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html</ref>.
#:In fact, relativity is what makes the magnetic force necessary. The magnetic force is used in, among other things, electric motors and generators.
#:Even if it were the case that no practical applications have come from relativity, that is irrelevant. The validity of a theory is not based on the creation of useful devices. It is based on its ability to accurately predict the results of an experiment. Relativity "has held up under extensive experimental scrutiny" <ref>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/</ref>.
#:If scientific theories were judged by their application in useful devices, the following Nobel-worthy theories would be rejected:
#::cosmic inflation
#::parity violation in the weak force
#::antiparticles
#::the Chandrasekhar limit for white dwarf stars
#''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.''
#:The rules for calculating inertia and other questions of mechanics are well known. The inertia, that is, the way that a force affects an object's momentum, is well known. Hundreds of physics textbooks discuss this in great detail, in terms of the Lorentz transform and the concepts of the force and momentum 4-vectors. The "inertia" comes from what is now called the mass, which used to be called the "rest mass". Archaic treatments formulated this in terms of the "relativistic mass", which was different. The mass is a scalar, and has no direction. The formulas for calculating the motion in terms of forces, in the direction of motion or transverse to it, are well known.
#''Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.''
#:This seems to be another basic misunderstanding of relativity, from someone who gave up halfway through the textbook. Newtonian momentum (p = mv) does certainly indicate that a body with zero mass (''m'') must have zero momentum whatever its velocity (''v''). However, the relativistic equation for momentum is:
#::<math> p = \gamma m_0v\,</math>
#:where ''m''0 is the [[invariant mass|rest mass]] of the object and ''?'' is the Lorentz factor, given by
#::<math>\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2}}\,,</math>
#:where ''c'' is the [[speed of light]].
#:For the case of a photon, where rest mass is zero and ''v'' is equal to ''c'', this gives ''p'' as zero divided by zero - an undetermined value.
#:However, with the substitution of the famous E=mc2, where E is the energy of the body, the momentum equation can be rearranged to:
#::<math>pc = \sqrt{E^2 - m_0^2c^4}</math>
#:With a photon of zero rest mass, this gives:
#::<math>p = E/c\,</math>
#:Finally, substituting Planck's Equation for the energy of a photon <math>E = hf\,</math> where ''h'' is [[Planck's Constant]] and ''f'' is the frequency of the photon, we get the familiar (and experimentally demonstrated) value for a photon's momentum of:
#::<math>p = hf/c = h/\lambda\,</math>
#:where <math>\lambda</math> is the photon's wavelength.<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html</ref>
#''Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.''
#:There are no "conditions of a conservative field". A conservative field is one that has a curl of zero. Perhaps what was meant was that the gravitational field around the Sun, under Newtonian mechanics, is conservative. This is true because it is the gradient of an inverse-square scalar field, and all gradients have a curl of zero. Under relativity, the curl is also zero, due to the Bianchi identity and the symmetries of Riemann's tensor. See the extensive discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ACounterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=801452&oldid=799266 here].
#:The reference to the twin paradox suggests that the author thought that the passage of time is some kind of scalar field that should be obtainable as the path integral of a conservative vector field. It is not. Passage of time is a property of one's path through spacetime, and is similar to path length. (In fact, under the Lorentz/Minkowski metric, it is exactly path length.) Just as two paths from point A to point B on a sheet of paper can have different lengths, the paths of the twins can have different lengths, and hence different elapsed local times.
#''The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?''
#:The "Ehrenfest paradox" is not an actual paradox. Non-inertial relativistic motion of solid bodies is quite complicated, involving such concepts as "Born rigidity", "Langevin observers", the "Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric", and "quotient manifolds". In general, the subject is complicated, and has provided physicists with much food for thought. But it does not disprove relativity.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.''
#:The claims of that item are preposterous. Read the cited paper (or its abstract) carefully. Einstein's statement that clocks would run slower at the equator, due to time dilation, was correct according to special relativity alone. What Einstein didn't realize, because he wouldn't discover general relativity for another 10 years, was that the gravitational time shift would offset that.
#:A "geoid" (the shape dicussed in the paper) is a theoretical shape used in mathematical physics, that is in equilibrium between the effects of centrifugal force (from rotation) and gravity. It is essentially an oblate spheroid. It can be thought of as the shape a rotating planet would take if it were completely fluid. Or it could be thought of as the shape of "global sea level". Jupiter, because of its rapid rotation, has a very pronounced flattening at the poles. Since Jupiter is not solid, its shape is a geoid. The Earth is ''very nearly'' a geoid, of course. But not exactly, because of gravitational nonuniformities, and things like mountains, that can exist because of the Earth's rigidity. No one "made new assumptions about the Earth's shape" to justify anything. The assumption that the Earth's shape is a geoid is a theoretical assumption due to the ''approximately'' fluid nature of the Earth. But no one claims that the Earth's shape is anything other than what it is observed and measured to be.
#:What the paper is about is the fact that the effects of rotational speed and gravitational time dilation happen to cancel each other on an ideal geoid. So all clocks at "sea level" on an ideal geoid-shaped planet run at the same speed. Whether this result is implausible is not for us to say.
#:The cited paper does not refute relativity.
#''The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.''
#:The physics and mathematics underlying the "twin paradox" are well known. That one of the twins will have had to undergo different accelerations from the other before returning to the same point is what enables them to perceive different passage of time. This does not contradict relativity, and Einstein never said that it does. His explanation in terms of different acceleration is correct.
#:The comment about extending the length of the trip so that the acceleration would be ''de minimis'' is wrong. It seems to suggest that the acceleration could be reduced until it is negligible. It can be reduced by lengthening the trip, but it is not negligible. The Lorentz transform, and the equations of motion, are mathematically exact. The integral of a very small function over a long period is still significant. If the twins followed different paths in spacetime, which they must in order to measure different elapsed proper time, they must have undergone different accelerations, however small those differences may have been.
#:Of course, if they never come back to the same point, they could both undergo zero acceleration.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.''
#:Quantum field theory abounds with fields. The Higgs particle has a Higgs field. It has nothing to do with the "luminiferous aether".
#''Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.''
#:Time isn't a vector. It is a component of the vector space known as "spacetime". Vectors have negatives; the word "inverse" is not typically used here. While there are thermodynamic and other reasons for not allowing time to go backwards in the real world, the mathematics of spacetime allow vectors with any components, even negative ones.
#''In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.''
#:That a Bible verse "likely" refers to a scientific phenomenon does not make good science. The objection appears to be claiming that the Bible contradicts the Michelson-Morley experiment, so the latter must be wrong. The Michelson-Morley experiment is very well known, has been repeated countless times, and is incontrovertible. To suggest that the Bible verse in Genesis contradicts such an incontrovertible phenomenon does a disservice to both the Bible and to science.
#''It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].''
#:Modern formulations of the Lorentz aether theory may very well make it completely equivalent to relativity, both special and general. But that doesn't make relativity wrong; it just means that another theory is just as correct. The universal preference of the scientific community for relativity over the Lorentz theory is probably not based on religious faith, but on simplicity, as expressed in [[Occam's razor]]. The Lorentz theory postulates an aether that no experiment can possibly determine the properties of, while relativity postulates no aether.
#''Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."''
#:They are not "beyond understanding". They are simply beyond closed-form solution. Cosmologists work with approximate solutions, calculated by extensive computer calculations, all the time. A well-known example of this is the simulation of galaxy dynamics. Particle physicists do this also, in, for example, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) calculations. It is fortunate that the equations of Keplerian/Newtonian planetary motion were solvable by the mathematical methods of the 17th century—a closed-form solution to a second-order differential equation. Modern physics problems are much harder. But, with modern computers, we can solve the equations of gravity to enormous precision.
#''Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein's Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."''
#:The first cited reference, from which the quote was taken, is a totally crackpot web page, from a web site that seems to specialize in hosting crackpot papers. The writing is utterly illiterate and incoherent, as in this sentence: "According to Faraday's Law it can be explained as that, duo to the magnetic flux in conductor line changing, firstly induced electromotive force dU coming from the line-winded conductor to bring out voltage, then based on differential form <math>I = \frac{-\sigma s dU}{dl}</math> of Ohm's Law, the physical natural would be regarded as 'voltage before electric current' "
#''Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.''
#:The equations of electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations), and their connection with relativity, are well known. Hundreds of electrodynamics textbooks cover this subject. The equations are correct at all realizable speeds, even relativistic (''near'' the speed of light) speeds. (Maxwell's equations are said to be the only equations from classical physics that did not need to be modified for relativity.) The equations correctly describe the behavior of magnets (this is presumably what was meant by "solenoids"), charges, and electric and magnetic fields, even at speeds near the speed of light. Of course the equations don't work ''at'' the speed of light. The cited article never discussed speeds ''near'' the speed of light, only ''at'' the speed of light. The questioner was rightly taken to task for his physically unrealizable assumption.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:science]]

Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-03-17T16:54:59Z

JudyJ: Per email from SamHB, who can't log in today

This is intended as an article rebutting the points in the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article. That article's talk page has proven to be less than satisfactory for this purpose, because it gets archived, and much of its material has degenerated into personal disputes. We believe that the two sides of the issue are better handled in two articles—this one and [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], rather than a talk page.

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

#''Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found. Sound like global warming?''
#:True, the ''direct'' searches for gravitational waves have not yet yielded any clear results, though indirect observations have been made (the Hulse/Taylor observations.) Before people dismiss indirect observations, recall that no one has ever seen an electron.
#:The Earth-based LIGO detectors have, so far, not detected any unambiguous gravitational wave signatures from such events as a black-hole merger. It is barely sensitive enough to find such things in the Milky Way or very nearby galaxies. It is being upgraded in a plan that should complete in 2014. It is hoped that, after the upgrade, it will be able to see these events clearly and unambiguously.
#:The space-based LISA detectors have not been built yet, and the original proposal has been scrapped because of budgetary problems. A new version, called "eLISA" has been proposed, and should be sensitive to events as far away as redshift 15.
#:Whether these experiments are a good use of money is another question, one that has no bearing on whether relativity is correct.
#::The objection has been raised that the experiments should not have been funded if scientists were going to ignore negative results.
#:::The results are only partly negative. The scientists knew all along that a certain amount of luck would be involved in finding a sufficiently strong signal within the time frame of the experiment. The failure so far does not mean that black-hole mergers do not emit gravitational waves; just that they haven't been lucky enough to find them. They will continue to search.
#:This has nothing to do with global warming.
#''The orbital radius of the Moon's orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts''.
#:This could be a counterexample to both GR and Newtonian gravity--in both, the radius is defined in terms of conserved quantities.
#::The objection has been raised that this would still be a counterexample to Relativity.
#:::Yes, if it were actually true that the Moon's orbit is undergoing some kind of anomalous perturbation, it would indeed be a disproof of Relativity, Newtonian mechanics, and, in fact, all of physics since Galileo.
#''The Pioneer anomaly.''
#:The "Pioneer anomaly" is the deviation in the motion of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft from their predicted motion, at the distance of Saturn and beyond. It should be noted that the anomaly is about 1000 times greater than the difference between the classical Newtonian prediction and the prediction of relativity, so this is not a problem with relativity ''per se''; it is more general than that.
#:Calculating the force caused by heat (that is, miniscule amounts of infrared radiation) from the radioactive power source was one of the first effects that was examined. The anomaly arose when this and other known effects could not fully explain the deviation.
#:The problem is believed to have been solved by taking into account the reflection of the radiation from the power source off of the back of the antenna dish<ref>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/</ref>. The solution is sometimes described as an application of "Phong shading", a technique of computer graphics that is now considered imprecise. But Phong shading itself is not what is important. The "ray tracing" computer graphics technique that underlies Phong shading was what inspired the scientists to take reflection into account.
#''Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity. The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement''.
#:This is an interesting observation. The world's best scientific minds are looking into it. That relativity is incorrect is not being taken seriously as a possible explanation.
#:'''Update:''' The problem seems to have been caused by a faulty cable connection between a computer and a GPS unit. When the connection was repaired, the travel time increased by 60 nanoseconds, which had been the amount of the anomaly <ref>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/22/technology-faster-than-light-neutrinos.html</ref> <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/22/loose-wire-led-to-stunning-faster-than-light-particle-finding/?intcmp=features</ref>.
#:The objection has been raised that a recent news report from the BBC ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is also contradictory, since neutrinos have mass and are therefore forbidden by relativity to travel at exactly the speed of light. Since the neutrino energies were 17GeV, and the current estimate for the neutrino mass is about 0.25eV, the deviation from the speed of light would be about 1 part in 1022. This means that the neutrinos would arrive at the detector about .26x10-24 seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is one quarter of a billionth of a femtosecond, or about .26x10-15 of a nanosecond. The accuracy of the GPS units and cesium clocks used in the measurement is greater than a nanosecond, so the discrepancy cannot possible be detected. It is unfortunate that the claim "the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos" was taken so literally.
#''Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").''
#:This may be another case of the Pioneer anomaly, or it may be something else. However, it is very unlikely that it shows that relativity is wrong and Newtonian mechanics is correct.
#''Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "dark matter" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it due to the acceleration of various parts of galaxies that accelerated funny that led to dark matter (based on simple Newtonian dynamics)?
#''The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "dark energy" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:This is the dark energy/cosmological constant argument. The cosmological constant was added by Einstein after he discovered that his field equations (<math>\mathbf{G}=8\pi \mathbf{T}</math>) predicted that the universe was expanding, contradicting his firm philosophical belief in a static universe. So he inserted <math>\Lambda \mathbf{g}</math> to the LHS so that it would predict a static universe. A few years later, Hubble showed the universe to be expanding, and Einstein called the cosmological constant the worst mistake of his career. So, it sort of had a bad reputation, and people didn't want to seriously consider it, until recent observations have shown the universe's expansion to be accelerating forced them to do so. It could have had a very different history. Einstein could have had that term in the EFE's from the start, and pointed out that it would determine if the universe's expansion was accelerating (or not expanding at all!) and it would take further observation to determine its value.
#''Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.''
#:A footnote goes on to say that "In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01) ..."
#:Considering only the ''anomalous'' precession, that is, the precession that remains after all known other factors (other planets and asteroids, solar oblateness) have been accounted for, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values are:
#::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
#::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
#::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
#::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
#::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
#:These error bars, and that of the relativity formula, all overlap.
#:The formula for mechanics under general relativity is complicated, but it is not contrived or conformed. "Conformed" suggests that it was somehow adjusted or "tweaked" to match the 42.98 figure. The formula is
#:::<math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>
#:To begin to explain the formula, Newton's law of gravity, combining F = ma and <math>F = \frac{KMm}{r^2}\,</math>, is
#::<math>a = \frac{KM}{r^2}\,</math>
#:In Einstein's equation, <math>T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "stress-energy tensor", and <math>8 \pi T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> gives the density of the Sun, taking the place of <math>\frac{M}{r^2}\,</math>. <math>G_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "Einstein curvature tensor", and says how spacetime curves to create an apparent gravitational acceleration.
#:There is nothing to tweak to get a value of 42.98 arcseconds. 8 is 8. <math>\pi\,</math> is <math>\pi\,</math>. K is Newton's constant of gravitation in both formulas.
#''The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.''
#:The formulas for velocity, momentum, and mass can in fact be written in such a way that they appear to have discontinuities, just as the tangent function has discontinuities while the underlying sine and cosine functions do not. But they can also be written in a form that does not show discontinuities.
#:All particles, with or without mass, can have any value of momentum. The formula for the velocity of a particle, in terms of its mass and momentum, is
#:::<math>v = \frac{pc}{\sqrt{m^2c^2+p^2}}</math>
#:For a particle with mass, this means that momentum of zero gives a speed of zero, and, as the momentum approaches infinity, the speed approaches c.
#:For a massless particle, the speed is always c.
#''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''
#:The simple answer is, unequivocally, that it acts on the 'relativistic' mass. The question seems to relate to a simple misunderstanding of Special Relativity. Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance in the body's mass with regard to the direction of the force. Thus to a given observer, a force in any direction will operate on the same mass. However, to a different observer, this mass may be different, although still the constant with regard to the direction of the force.
#''The observed lack of curvature in overall space.''
#:What? Is has been observed
#''The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.''
#:We're still working on a quantum theory of gravity; this isn't so much a counter-example as saying that (classical)GR isn't valid in that domain.
#''The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.''
#:Special Relativity only forbids the transmission of matter, energy or information at a speed faster than light. There are plenty of other things that can move faster than light. Consider a laser on Earth which is rotating on a pivot, whose light shines onto the hull of a satellite 200,000Km away (2e8 metres). If the laser rotates at a sedentary one revolution ever four seconds, the speed of the laser beam's tip crossing the satellite's hull is 3.14e8 metres per second - faster than the speed of light. However, this is not a transfer of information. Any information is travelling from Earth to the satellite, obeying the universal speed limit. Similarly, the only information that can be transmitted by the quantum entanglement of two particles is from the originator of the particles to the two observers, not from one observer to another. Faster than light transmission of information using quantum entanglement has never been observed, nor has even conceived how such a mechanism might work.<ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612</ref>
#''The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.''
#:As an argument against relativity, there are two reasons that this is invalid (beyond simply questioning the evidential validity of the Bible):
#::a) These passages clearly refer to a [[miracle]]. A miracle, being an act of God, is not subject to the laws of physics.
#::b) It is highly debatable as to whether the verses do describe [[action-at-a-distance]] in the sense of an action whose influence travels instantaneously (and therefore faster than the speed of light). This itself may be argued from two viewpoints:
#:::i) When reading these passages, as with consideration of many apparent relativistic anomalies, the true picture of causality must be considered. In each case there are two apparent events. Event A - Jesus does something (says 'thy son liveth', says 'be it unto thee even as thou wilt', or Christ's spirit leaving His body). Event B - the apparent result (the son lives, her daughter is made whole, or the earth quakes). However, it is not the case in any of these examples that A causes B. Both A and B are caused by a third event. In the first two cases it is Christ's thought that causes the miracle and that causes His lips to announce the miracle. This thought would have occurred fractions of a second before either event, and is the non-instantaneous cause of both. In the last case it is Christ's death that is the precursor and cause of both events.
#:::ii) It must be considered that at the time when the Gospels were written, neither their authors nor their intended readers were aware of any concept of the speed of light and were unable to measure the billionths of a second difference between the events being considered here. Thus just as in modern parlance the phrase 'at the same moment' has a tolerance of milliseconds (unless specifically couched to mean otherwise) so do the various terms used by the Evangelists. They would never have considered it an important issue, and would therefore not have worried about the degree of precision.
#''The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.''
#:Gravitons are a prediction of [[Quantum Theory]], not of relativity, although the concept is an extension of the relativistic idea that forces take a finite time to be transmitted over a distance.
#:No one expects to observe gravitons. Calculations show that it is well-nigh impossible with any conceivable detector that we could build. No one is designing, funding, or building any apparatus to search for gravitons.
#:Now it happens that theoretical physicists discuss and speculate on the existence and nature of such things as gravitons as part of their theoretical work. Some of these discussions take place among scientists who receive their salaries from various government agencies that are funded by taxpayers. Whether all of the things that scientists think about, talk about, and write about constitute a good use of money is not for us to say.
#''Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do not experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity''
#:Whilst this observation is unconfirmed, if true it would still not invalidate relativity. Many things may vary with position in space, and relativity does not deny this. There is no suggestion that the fine-structure constant is different at the same point in space for observers in different non-inertial frame, as the 'counterexample' implies.
#''The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a black hole. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."''
#:When physicists encounter something puzzling, their first reaction is usually not to assume that it shows that relativity is wrong. In fact the cited article never mentions relativity at all. It is about "magnetars", a type of neutron star about which very little is known, other than their extremely strong magnetic fields.
#:Many scientific discoveries have arisen from observations that were puzzling at first. Edwin Hubble's observations of galactic redshift led to the realization that the universe is expanding isotropically. The observations by Jocelyn Bell and Antony Hewish, of periodic pulsation in the radio emissions of a star, were so puzzling at first that they seemed to suggest transmissions from intelligent extraterrestrials. They had actually discovered pulsars. When Carl Anderson saw unexplained particle tracks in a cloud chamber, he had discovered antiparticles.
#:None of these people assumed that the explanation for these observations was that relativity was wrong. They were all astrophysicists and were quite familiar with relativity. In fact, Anderson's antiparticles had been predicted by the Dirac equation, a synthesis of special relativity and the Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics, from a few years earlier.
#''The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.''
#:It is utterly baffling how anyone could make such an assertion. The insights from relativity are multitudinous. Relativity forms the basis for astronomy, cosmology, electrodynamics, and many other fields. The interconnection between the electric and magnetic forces is now seen to be a straightforward consequence of relativity. Relativity combined with quantum mechanics are the basis of all of contemporary physics.
#:The Dirac equation, which gives rise to antiparticles and the theory of spinors, was an early example of introducing relatitivity into the Schrödinger equation.
#:More generally, special relativity was combined with quantum theory to produce [[quantum field theory]] (QFT). An example of a QFT is [[quantum electrodynamics]], the most precise theory in physics. Furthermore, string theory is Lorentz invariant and produces general relativity in the low energy limit.
#''The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.''
#:Clearly there are a few dots that need to be joined here before this can become a coherent argument for or against anything. The best interpretation that can be put on it is that the [[Law of the conservation of mass|principle of conservation]] of mass is being violated. However relativity, with its concept of mass/energy equivalence, holds to a more general [[Principle of conservation of energy|principle of conservation of energy]]. Thus relativity might easily explain the observation, as keeping the standard masses in a perfect energy isolated environment is a far harder task than keeping them in a matter isolated environment (which is itself not perfectly achievable).
#:However, until specific explanations for the variations in mass of the various standard bodies are offered, there is no foundation to any speculation as to what laws of physics are involved, let alone whether they are being violated.
#''The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 22, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about speculation that the constant "alpha" (see item 16 above) may not be constant. It might have decreased, by 45 parts per billion, as recently (in cosmic time) as two billion years ago, based on data from the Oklo "natural fission reactor". Other measurements have been made of alpha at earlier times, such as measurement of light from distant quasars. These measurements suggest that alpha has increased by a few parts per 105 in 12 billion years.
#:There is plenty of literature on theories about change in alpha, and some of it indicates that this may be due to change in the speed of light. Specifically, the Oklo data may suggest that the speed of light may have been increasing slightly. (This is the opposite of the direction of change claimed by fundamentalists, but is much smaller in any case.)
#:Speculation on a different speed of light in the past may relate to theories of "cosmic inflation", which touches on the question of why the Cosmic Background Radiation is so nearly isotropic, which indicates a near-uniformity of temperature, which requires inflation or some equivalent mechanism.
#:None of the scientists working in this area seem to doubt the fundamental correctness of relativity.
#''"According to Einstein's view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 22, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about a very recent and exciting development in fundamental theoretical physics, generally called the "holographic principle". This proposes that our perceived 3-dimensional space actually arises from a "hologram" on a 2-dimensional space. Much has been written about this recently, including the best-selling book ''The Hidden Reality'' by Brian Greene. This hologram manifests itself in the "foamlike" ripples of spacetime, at the scale of the Planck length, which is so small that there seemed to be no way to detect it directly.
#:But it seems that some "inexplicable static" in the results of another unrelated experiment, searching for gravitational waves, may be the first hints of the holographic nature of space. If so, this is a lucky and serendipitous result.
#:Serendipitous scientific discoveries have been made many times, as when Henri Becquerel put a photographic plate in a dark drawer because the weather was cloudy, and thereby discovered radioactivity.
#:That the "foamlike" nature of space at short distances is contrary to the continuous nature presumed by classical mechanics and relativity has been known for some time. This is the problem that quantum gravity seeks to solve.
#''"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don't gel."''
#:Quoting things without explaining the context is often a bad idea, and the indicated item is a good example of this. It gives no hint of what the article from which the quote was taken is about. The article is about one scientist's contribution to the problem of unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. The scientist, Petr HoYava of Berkeley, has come up with an approach that he says eliminates the infinities that have plagued other unification attempts.
#:The two quoted sentences are HoYava's ''statement of the problem''. So it comes as no surprise that he says that there is a conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics. The very next paragraph begins:
#::The solution, HoYava says, is to snip threads that bind time to space at very high energies .... At low energies, general relativity emerges from this underlying framework ..."
#:It is well known that, just as classical mechanics emerges from quantum mechanics at non-microscopic scales, and classical mechanics emerges from relativity at low speeds, both relativity and quantum mechanics should emerge from the Grand Unified Theory (whatever that turns out to be) at the appropriate scales.
#''The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.''
#:The topology of wormholes is an interesting topic, widely discussed among theoretical physicists and mathematicians. There is much speculation about what they would be like (if they could exist at all under quantum gravity), and what kind of "cosmic censorship" or "chronology protection" theorems might make practical time travel impossible. The nature of these theorems seems to be intertwined with theories of quantum gravity and "grand unification", so the exact form of the "cosmic censorship", if it exists, can't be known until quantum mechanics and relativistic geometry are unified. It is an exciting field of research. No one believes that the "cosmic censorship" will take the form of relativity not being a true non-quantum approximation to reality.
#''The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.''
#:Since the 70's much work has been done on the subject of black hole thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973CMaPh..31..161B</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9307035v1.pdf</ref>, most notably by the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge [[Stephen Hawking]]. When quantum field theory is added to the analysis of black holes it is found that they do not possess "low entropy" (quite the opposite, in fact) and are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...7.2333B</ref>. The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article has labelled this work in a footnote as "[c]ontrived explanations", with no explanation for this characterization given.
#''Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.''
#:Please read the cited paper carefully. It is a survey of their observations over a 30 year period. They point out that their data matches general relativity to within 0.2 percent, and is now down in the "noise" of other effects, such as lack of accurate knowledge of just how far away the pulsars are, and lack of accurate knowledge of galactic constants. As they say in the abstract, "tighter bounds will be difficult to obtain." The paper, written in 2004, also notes that, because the pulsar beams are slowly tilting out of the line of sight to Earth, "A core component [of the emission] is quite prominent in the data taken in 1980-81, but it faded very significantly between 1980 and 1998 and was nearly gone by 2003."
#:That is why they are not releasing further data. 30 years is a fairly long time to watch a pair of pulsars. They're not doing the experiment any more—it did its job, and it's finished. No one drops cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa any more either.
#:The data are not diverging from the predictions.
#''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.''
#:The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses general relativity to achieve greater accuracy<ref>http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html</ref>.
#:In fact, relativity is what makes the magnetic force necessary. The magnetic force is used in, among other things, electric motors and generators.
#:Even if it were the case that no practical applications have come from relativity, that is irrelevant. The validity of a theory is not based on the creation of useful devices. It is based on its ability to accurately predict the results of an experiment. Relativity "has held up under extensive experimental scrutiny" <ref>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/</ref>.
#:If scientific theories were judged by their application in useful devices, the following Nobel-worthy theories would be rejected:
#::cosmic inflation
#::parity violation in the weak force
#::antiparticles
#::the Chandrasekhar limit for white dwarf stars
#''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.''
#:The rules for calculating inertia and other questions of mechanics are well known. The inertia, that is, the way that a force affects an object's momentum, is well known. Hundreds of physics textbooks discuss this in great detail, in terms of the Lorentz transform and the concepts of the force and momentum 4-vectors. The "inertia" comes from what is now called the mass, which used to be called the "rest mass". Archaic treatments formulated this in terms of the "relativistic mass", which was different. The mass is a scalar, and has no direction. The formulas for calculating the motion in terms of forces, in the direction of motion or transverse to it, are well known.
#''Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.''
#:This seems to be another basic misunderstanding of relativity, from someone who gave up halfway through the textbook. Newtonian momentum (p = mv) does certainly indicate that a body with zero mass (''m'') must have zero momentum whatever its velocity (''v''). However, the relativistic equation for momentum is:
#::<math> p = \gamma m_0v\,</math>
#:where ''m''0 is the [[invariant mass|rest mass]] of the object and ''?'' is the Lorentz factor, given by
#::<math>\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2}}\,,</math>
#:where ''c'' is the [[speed of light]].
#:For the case of a photon, where rest mass is zero and ''v'' is equal to ''c'', this gives ''p'' as zero divided by zero - an undetermined value.
#:However, with the substitution of the famous E=mc2, where E is the energy of the body, the momentum equation can be rearranged to:
#::<math>pc = \sqrt{E^2 - m_0^2c^4}</math>
#:With a photon of zero rest mass, this gives:
#::<math>p = E/c\,</math>
#:Finally, substituting Planck's Equation for the energy of a photon <math>E = hf\,</math> where ''h'' is [[Planck's Constant]] and ''f'' is the frequency of the photon, we get the familiar (and experimentally demonstrated) value for a photon's momentum of:
#::<math>p = hf/c = h/\lambda\,</math>
#:where <math>\lambda</math> is the photon's wavelength.<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html</ref>
#''Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.''
#:There are no "conditions of a conservative field". A conservative field is one that has a curl of zero. Perhaps what was meant was that the gravitational field around the Sun, under Newtonian mechanics, is conservative. This is true because it is the gradient of an inverse-square scalar field, and all gradients have a curl of zero. Under relativity, the curl is also zero, due to the Bianchi identity and the symmetries of Riemann's tensor. See the extensive discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ACounterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=801452&oldid=799266 here].
#:The reference to the twin paradox suggests that the author thought that the passage of time is some kind of scalar field that should be obtainable as the path integral of a conservative vector field. It is not. Passage of time is a property of one's path through spacetime, and is similar to path length. (In fact, under the Lorentz/Minkowski metric, it is exactly path length.) Just as two paths from point A to point B on a sheet of paper can have different lengths, the paths of the twins can have different lengths, and hence different elapsed local times.
#''The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?''
#:The "Ehrenfest paradox" is not an actual paradox. Non-inertial relativistic motion of solid bodies is quite complicated, involving such concepts as "Born rigidity", "Langevin observers", the "Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric", and "quotient manifolds". In general, the subject is complicated, and has provided physicists with much food for thought. But it does not disprove relativity.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.''
#:The claims of that item are preposterous. Read the cited paper (or its abstract) carefully. Einstein's statement that clocks would run slower at the equator, due to time dilation, was correct according to special relativity alone. What Einstein didn't realize, because he wouldn't discover general relativity for another 10 years, was that the gravitational time shift would offset that.
#:A "geoid" (the shape dicussed in the paper) is a theoretical shape used in mathematical physics, that is in equilibrium between the effects of centrifugal force (from rotation) and gravity. It is essentially an oblate spheroid. It can be thought of as the shape a rotating planet would take if it were completely fluid. Or it could be thought of as the shape of "global sea level". Jupiter, because of its rapid rotation, has a very pronounced flattening at the poles. Since Jupiter is not solid, its shape is a geoid. The Earth is ''very nearly'' a geoid, of course. But not exactly, because of gravitational nonuniformities, and things like mountains, that can exist because of the Earth's rigidity. No one "made new assumptions about the Earth's shape" to justify anything. The assumption that the Earth's shape is a geoid is a theoretical assumption due to the ''approximately'' fluid nature of the Earth. But no one claims that the Earth's shape is anything other than what it is observed and measured to be.
#:What the paper is about is the fact that the effects of rotational speed and gravitational time dilation happen to cancel each other on an ideal geoid. So all clocks at "sea level" on an ideal geoid-shaped planet run at the same speed. Whether this result is implausible is not for us to say.
#:The cited paper does not refute relativity.
#''The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.''
#:The physics and mathematics underlying the "twin paradox" are well known. That one of the twins will have had to undergo different accelerations from the other before returning to the same point is what enables them to perceive different passage of time. This does not contradict relativity, and Einstein never said that it does. His explanation in terms of different acceleration is correct.
#:The comment about extending the length of the trip so that the acceleration would be ''de minimis'' is wrong. It seems to suggest that the acceleration could be reduced until it is negligible. It can be reduced by lengthening the trip, but it is not negligible. The Lorentz transform, and the equations of motion, are mathematically exact. The integral of a very small function over a long period is still significant. If the twins followed different paths in spacetime, which they must in order to measure different elapsed proper time, they must have undergone different accelerations, however small those differences may have been.
#:Of course, if they never come back to the same point, they could both undergo zero acceleration.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.''
#:Quantum field theory abounds with fields. The Higgs particle has a Higgs field. It has nothing to do with the "luminiferous aether".
#''Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.''
#:Time isn't a vector. It is a component of the vector space known as "spacetime". Vectors have negatives; the word "inverse" is not typically used here. While there are thermodynamic and other reasons for not allowing time to go backwards in the real world, the mathematics of spacetime allow vectors with any components, even negative ones.
#''In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.''
#:That a Bible verse "likely" refers to a scientific phenomenon does not make good science. The objection appears to be claiming that the Bible contradicts the Michelson-Morley experiment, so the latter must be wrong. The Michelson-Morley experiment is very well known, has been repeated countless times, and is incontrovertible. To suggest that the Bible verse in Genesis contradicts such an incontrovertible phenomenon does a disservice to both the Bible and to science.
#''It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].''
#:Modern formulations of the Lorentz aether theory may very well make it completely equivalent to relativity, both special and general. But that doesn't make relativity wrong; it just means that another theory is just as correct. The universal preference of the scientific community for relativity over the Lorentz theory is probably not based on religious faith, but on simplicity, as expressed in [[Occam's razor]]. The Lorentz theory postulates an aether that no experiment can possibly determine the properties of, while relativity postulates no aether.
#''Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."''
#:They are not "beyond understanding". They are simply beyond closed-form solution. Cosmologists work with approximate solutions, calculated by extensive computer calculations, all the time. A well-known example of this is the simulation of galaxy dynamics. Particle physicists do this also, in, for example, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) calculations. It is fortunate that the equations of Keplerian/Newtonian planetary motion were solvable by the mathematical methods of the 17th century—a closed-form solution to a second-order differential equation. Modern physics problems are much harder. But, with modern computers, we can solve the equations of gravity to enormous precision.
#''Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein's Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."''
#:The first cited reference, from which the quote was taken, is a totally crackpot web page, from a web site that seems to specialize in hosting crackpot papers. The writing is utterly illiterate and incoherent, as in this sentence: "According to Faraday's Law it can be explained as that, duo to the magnetic flux in conductor line changing, firstly induced electromotive force dU coming from the line-winded conductor to bring out voltage, then based on differential form <math>I = \frac{-\sigma s dU}{dl}</math> of Ohm's Law, the physical natural would be regarded as 'voltage before electric current' "
#''Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.''
#:The equations of electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations), and their connection with relativity, are well known. Hundreds of electrodynamics textbooks cover this subject. The equations are correct at all realizable speeds, even relativistic (''near'' the speed of light) speeds. (Maxwell's equations are said to be the only equations from classical physics that did not need to be modified for relativity.) The equations correctly describe the behavior of magnets (this is presumably what was meant by "solenoids"), charges, and electric and magnetic fields, even at speeds near the speed of light. Of course the equations don't work ''at'' the speed of light. The cited article never discussed speeds ''near'' the speed of light, only ''at'' the speed of light. The questioner was rightly taken to task for his physically unrealizable assumption.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:science]]