Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Intellectual dishonesty

2009-06-17T01:45:29Z

Lemonpeel:

== Pretty Embarrassing ==
Real Nazi stuff here, you realize that?--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 21:45, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

This is why I stick to categorization... [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:01, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

The Murray quote is a rather one-sided and narrow (and I don't mean politically, I mean in terms of the science on the issue) dialogue on the issues with IQ testing. I think an article on IQ testing should be created to rectify this, and I think this quote needs to be balanced or taken down.--[[User:John|John]] 16:05, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:The Murray quote is also way off. If you look in any psychology textbook (you know, from liberal academia) what you'll find is that there is an effect of ethnicity on IQ, and that it's attributed to environmental factors, not genetics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:23, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Eugenics.net? ==

I have to admit, I have read the quotation from eugenics.net several times, and I'm not sure what the point is. Who is being intellectually dishonest? The racist who wrote the straw man quote? Or the liberals who refuse to believe (according to the guy who wrote the straw man) the racism in the quote? I think in general we shouldn't quote from something found on a website called "eugenics.net". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:38, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:M-theory

2009-06-17T01:37:47Z

Lemonpeel: /* A Total Failure */

== A Total Failure ==
I removed the blatantly untrue sentence "M Theory is a total failure". Many of the dualities that comprise M-theory have been verified mathematically. A fundamental goal of M-theory is to unite the existing and various versions of super-string theory. This project is far from complete, but nor is it a "total failure". It's an on-going topic of research.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 20:39, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

: I agree that M-theory is not a total failure, because it has generated some interesting math. However as a unified field theory to explain the forces of nature, it is a failure. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:03, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:: It's potential for success as a unified field theory remains open to question. This is not quite the same thing as being a "failure". You know, quantum electrodynamics also went through a rather long rough period before it was finally accepted as the official theory of light and matter.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 21:37, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:M-theory

2009-06-17T00:39:55Z

Lemonpeel: Created page with '== A Total Failure == I removed the blatantly untrue sentence "M Theory is a total failure". Many of the dualities that comprise M-theory have been verified mathematically. A fun...'

M-theory

2009-06-17T00:35:03Z

Lemonpeel:

'''M-theory''' is a theory conjectured to exist by [[Edward Witten]] of the Institute for Advanced Study, that would unify the five different superstring theories: [[Type IIA string theory]], [[Type IIB string theory]], [[Heterotic string theory]], [[SO(32) string theory]], and heterotic ''E''8×''E''8 string theory; all of these seemingly different string theories are simply different limits of the same underlying M-theory. [[Edward Witten]] has used M-theory to explain a number of observed dualities, such as the T-duality, U-duality and S-duality. The discovery of M-theory is hailed by string theorists as the second superstring revolution.

In M-theory, the fundamental constituents of the universe are membranes, or p-brane where p is the dimensionality of the membrane. Thus the strings theorized in [[String theory]] belongs in the class of 1 dimensional membranes, the 1-branes.

So far, no one has found any relation between M-theory and gravity, electricity, photons, or any other known aspect of the real world, nor has anyone shown that anything can be consistently calculated in M-theory.

[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:String theory

2009-06-17T00:26:01Z

Lemonpeel: /* Witten, the History Major */

== Witten, the History Major ==
I believe this fact is true, but how relevant is its inclusion here? As written, it almost makes it sound like Witten is lacking in qualifications. Obviously nothing could be further from the truth. His insights from string theory have contributed to revolutions in mathematics. Almost every topic of research in geometry bears his name: Seiberg-Witten theory, the Witten complex, the Witten index, Gromov-Witten theory, it just goes on and on. According to Nature, he has the highest h-index of any living physicist. AND, he's won the Fields Medal. So possibly he deserves a little respect.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 17:37, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:Witten may be a fabulous mathematician. He may be a great historian also. But it's a common flaw of [[liberal]] thinking to insist that because someone is good in one academic field, he must be an expert in another.

:In fact, great literary writers, for example, are usually not great physicists. Physics, I hope you'd agree, is the study of physical world and that usually requires an interest and skill at conducting experiments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
::Not to worry--having taught history majors for 40 years I can assure everyone that having a BA degree in history does not indicate being a great literary writer and does not disqualify someone from being a great scientist. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:02, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

::The attempt to discredit Witten as a physicist here seems somewhat deceitful to me -- there can really be no question of his qualifications in physics (whatever your views on string theory). Why is the subject of his undergraduate major important enough to mention, while is graduate specialty (physics, and under a Nobel laureate in physics at that) is not? He's written a number of important papers outside of string theory. Moreover, if you look through the list of Nobel laureates in physics, a good number of them have certainly done few if any experiments in their professional careers. The assertion that physicists must be skilled experimentalists is obviously specious. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:58, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

I understand your point, but hear me out: Witten received his Ph.D. in '''physics''' under the advisorship of David Gross, a Nobel-Prize winning physicist. Witten has served as a professor of '''physics''' at Princeton (1980-87), and is now at the Institute for Advanced Studies as a Charles Simonyi professor of '''physics'''. He has more awards and honors in science than I care to mention, but a few that are relevant: Fellow, American Physical Society 1984, Einstein Medal, Einstein Society of Berne, Switzerland, 1985, Dirac Medal, International Center for Theoretical Physics, 1985. You may not like his work, but you can't argue with the fact that the man is a physicist.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 18:04, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

: Witten also has a Craaford Prize [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crafoord_Prize] which is like a Nobel prize given in science-related fields to people who are not eligible to win regular Nobel prizes. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:15, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

::So if you don't win a Nobel prize, you're not a physicist? By the way, I take it from your source that you were unable to find that kind of detailed information on these pages.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 18:19, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Witten seems to be a [[Richard Dawkins]]-type. In fact, both hold (or held) non-academic positions established by the billionaire Charles Simonyi. Those Simonyi positions, in my opinion, are not real peer-reviewed professorships.

:::The Craaford Prize looks like a real liberal honor, judging by who else received it.

:::The point is simply this: has Witten ever even conducted a college-level physics experiment? Let the record reflect that as a history major he may not have, and I doubt he has since.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:30, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
:::: In answer to this question: According to the Princeton Physics Dept Website (Witten received his Ph.D. from Princeton), to qualify for the Ph.D., students must satisfy an "Experimental Requirement." It is very clear from the description of this project that they want the student to become well-versed in real laboratory work.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 18:47, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Sure, Witten is a physicist. But he is primarily respected for his accomplishments in Math, not Physics. He is never going to get that Nobel prize in Physics. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:36, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

::::Witten held professorships at Princeton (and IAS) for ten years before taking up that chaired position, so it's clearly irrelevant to his qualifications in physics. Simonyi aside, I'm not sure why conducting a college-level physics experiment is supposed to be a prerequisite to be called a physicist, particularly a theoretical physicist. Many winners of the physics Nobel do purely theoretical work (Wilczek and Gross are two recent such winners, off the top of my head). Perhaps they did experiments as undergraduates, but they almost certainly haven't since. Would you question that their work is physics? Why would that fact that Witten didn't do trivial experiments decades ago have any implications for his qualifications to do physics? I doubt very much that his failure to perform these experiments has had too crippling effect on his physical intuitions. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 18:47, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::Well, in all fairness, it's good to know that the person has some connection with how theories are verified in practice. But as I pointed out above, experimental experience is a requirement of the Princeton physics Ph.D.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 18:51, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Rules often have exceptions, and if an exception were possible, then Witten would have likely benefited from it. After all, merely being ''admitted'' into Princeton's PhD physics program after majoring in history in college is a remarkable "exception".

:::::::Witten has written extensively, I think. Has he ever, ever mentioned his doing an actual experiment, even if just once?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::::This may be one of the silliest debates I've ever participated in.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 20:26, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== String theory "unrelated" to known forces in nature? ==
In the article introduction, the claim is made that it has been proven that string theory is unrelated to any known forces in nature. This sounds manifestly untrue. For example, in bosonic string theory, a massless vector boson appears in a natural way. Those familiar with quantum field theory will recognize this particle as a photon, which mediates the electrodynamic force. So how about we amend that comment?--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:47, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

I went ahead and amended statements saying that string theory cannot predict any real particles in nature (since it predicts the photon at the very least). I did, however, make sure there was a statement saying that the status of string theory as a genuine theory of everything remained uncertain.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:56, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

: No, string theory does not predict the photon. Saying that it can accommodate a massless vector boson means nothing. It does not tell us anything about photons. I also disagree with saying that there is uncertainty about string theory being a genuine theory of everything. It is a settled matter. String theory is not a theory of anything (in the physical world). [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:01, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Out of curiousity, what makes you so certain of this? Do you have any background in string theory? I mean, consider this: suppose you have a theory with a massless vector boson, A. There's really only one gauge-invariant kinetic term you can construct out of it, namely dA^*dA. Well, as soon as you have that kinetic term in a Lagrangian, then boom, you have Maxwell's equations. So, um, yeah, accommodating a vector boson does indeed predict things like photons and electromagnetic fields. If you still disagree I am interested to know what your source is.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 16:13, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

: What you are describing was known decades before string theory. It is not a prediction of string theory in any shape or form. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:06, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== Falsifiability is from Pragmatism, not Positivism ==

Advocates of logical positivism such as Wittgenstein, Carnap, et. al. held that scientific propositions should be ''verifiable'', thus the name "positivism". The question became what, exactly, it meant for something to be verifiable, so the logical positivists developed a theory of logic & language to be put to use in the course of empirical investigations.

Karl Popper and W.V. Quine were the pragmatists who took issue with the positivist position of verifiability and required a ''falsifiability'' condition from empirical claims on the grounds that one could never actually verify a claim through empirical investigation, but one could most assuredly prove it wrong through experimentation.

Because of the strong mathematical content of String Theory, a positivist would be more likely to accept it as a scientific theory than a pragmatist.

: Your comments here make sense to me, and were consistent with my original entry until someone else changed it. How about fixing up the entry itself with your improvements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 25 February 2007 (EST)

== Completeness and Computability ==
This:

"However it is not yet demonstrated that the theory is insoluble (see the Incompleteness theorem): that is, while string theory is not yet provable, it has not been shown to be unprovable. As an analogy, it can be suggested that all objects become green when they are not being observed: this is a model which is unprovable in principle, and therefore unscientific."

Makes no sense whatsoever. This is confusing the mathematical notions of completeness and independence with the ability to disprove something through empirical means. One does not show by mathematical means that a potentially empirical claim is indeed falsifiable, that must be done by considering the claims of the theory and the manner in which they are phrased. If string theory were to predict certain particles in certain abundances, or something similar, then the theory would be falsifiable, in the same way that quantum field theory is rendered falsifiable by the Higgs mechanism. What's more, only the mathematics may be subjected to the incompleteness theorem. As all of physics relies on extremely rich mathematics that are, under Godel's theorem, incomplete while, at the same time, remaining falsifiable, it seems ridiculous to suggest that the completeness or incompleteness of the mathematics should have any bearing on the falsifiability of the claims in question.

: I agree. I also found senseless the reference to the incompleteness theorem. It almost looks like vandalism. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

What's more, it is extremely unlikely that incompleteness has any bearing on any physics anywhere in any way -- the ties between computability and completeness prevent this from happening. A physically realizable state is always computable, in any context. The system giving rise to that realization is doing the computation! Invoking Incompleteness here is pure hogwash.

: Right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

In the last sentence, we've gotten confused again. The first part of the article made appeal to falsifiability, and now in the last sentence we're requiring positive establishment. For consistency with the first part of the article, the author should have said "The claim that all objects become green when they are not observed is not falsifiable". (And I doubt that even this is true, since a lack of the required mechanism to render objects green falsifies the statement).

Finally, String Theory's central claims are put in a way that are falsifiable, as long as we have the ability to probe the energies and scales required. The fact that we don't have the technology does not have any bearing on the lingual structure of the claims.

: Well ... will there be any way to falsify it in the foreseeable future? If not, then it's not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

It is enough to note that, to date, no evidence has been found to support string theory. That's it.

: The criticism should be a bit stronger. There is "no evidence" found to support claims that Atlas isn't holding up the earth in a new dimension either. The stronger point that String theory isn't really science should be made.

: Also, please sign your discussion at some point, or else it becomes hard to see who said what. The signature box is the second from the right above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:: There ''will'' be a way (or ways) to falsify it in the future - if the particles predicted/required by the various string theories don't actually show up when we have particle accelerators big enough to generate the energies required for those particles to form. Yes it is not testable now but should be in the future. I don't see why we should disregard something purely because right now we don't have the technology to test it. Are we luddites or can we accept the ''possible'' validity of a theory which ''does'' seem to imply a huge amount of underlying structure in the way the universe is made. I am not saying that we should consider string theory as fact, but do not discount the possibility of it being validated in the future.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: There are no particles predicted by string theory, and there is no way to falsify string theory no matter how big the accelerators are. There is no possibility that string theory will ever be validated. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:22, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:String theory

2009-06-16T22:52:08Z

Lemonpeel: /* Witten, the History Major */

== Witten, the History Major ==
I believe this fact is true, but how relevant is its inclusion here? As written, it almost makes it sound like Witten is lacking in qualifications. Obviously nothing could be further from the truth. His insights from string theory have contributed to revolutions in mathematics. Almost every topic of research in geometry bears his name: Seiberg-Witten theory, the Witten complex, the Witten index, Gromov-Witten theory, it just goes on and on. According to Nature, he has the highest h-index of any living physicist. AND, he's won the Fields Medal. So possibly he deserves a little respect.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 17:37, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:Witten may be a fabulous mathematician. He may be a great historian also. But it's a common flaw of [[liberal]] thinking to insist that because someone is good in one academic field, he must be an expert in another.

:In fact, great literary writers, for example, are usually not great physicists. Physics, I hope you'd agree, is the study of physical world and that usually requires an interest and skill at conducting experiments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
::Not to worry--having taught history majors for 40 years I can assure everyone that having a BA degree in history does not indicate being a great literary writer and does not disqualify someone from being a great scientist. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:02, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

::The attempt to discredit Witten as a physicist here seems somewhat deceitful to me -- there can really be no question of his qualifications in physics (whatever your views on string theory). Why is the subject of his undergraduate major important enough to mention, while is graduate specialty (physics, and under a Nobel laureate in physics at that) is not? He's written a number of important papers outside of string theory. Moreover, if you look through the list of Nobel laureates in physics, a good number of them have certainly done few if any experiments in their professional careers. The assertion that physicists must be skilled experimentalists is obviously specious. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:58, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

I understand your point, but hear me out: Witten received his Ph.D. in '''physics''' under the advisorship of David Gross, a Nobel-Prize winning physicist. Witten has served as a professor of '''physics''' at Princeton (1980-87), and is now at the Institute for Advanced Studies as a Charles Simonyi professor of '''physics'''. He has more awards and honors in science than I care to mention, but a few that are relevant: Fellow, American Physical Society 1984, Einstein Medal, Einstein Society of Berne, Switzerland, 1985, Dirac Medal, International Center for Theoretical Physics, 1985. You may not like his work, but you can't argue with the fact that the man is a physicist.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 18:04, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

: Witten also has a Craaford Prize [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crafoord_Prize] which is like a Nobel prize given in science-related fields to people who are not eligible to win regular Nobel prizes. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:15, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

::So if you don't win a Nobel prize, you're not a physicist? By the way, I take it from your source that you were unable to find that kind of detailed information on these pages.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 18:19, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Witten seems to be a [[Richard Dawkins]]-type. In fact, both hold (or held) non-academic positions established by the billionaire Charles Simonyi. Those Simonyi positions, in my opinion, are not real peer-reviewed professorships.

:::The Craaford Prize looks like a real liberal honor, judging by who else received it.

:::The point is simply this: has Witten ever even conducted a college-level physics experiment? Let the record reflect that as a history major he may not have, and I doubt he has since.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:30, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
:::: In answer to this question: According to the Princeton Physics Dept Website (Witten received his Ph.D. from Princeton), to qualify for the Ph.D., students must satisfy an "Experimental Requirement." It is very clear from the description of this project that they want the student to become well-versed in real laboratory work.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 18:47, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Sure, Witten is a physicist. But he is primarily respected for his accomplishments in Math, not Physics. He is never going to get that Nobel prize in Physics. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:36, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

::::Witten held professorships at Princeton (and IAS) for ten years before taking up that chaired position, so it's clearly irrelevant to his qualifications in physics. Simonyi aside, I'm not sure why conducting a college-level physics experiment is supposed to be a prerequisite to be called a physicist, particularly a theoretical physicist. Many winners of the physics Nobel do purely theoretical work (Wilczek and Gross are two recent such winners, off the top of my head). Perhaps they did experiments as undergraduates, but they almost certainly haven't since. Would you question that their work is physics? Why would that fact that Witten didn't do trivial experiments decades ago have any implications for his qualifications to do physics? I doubt very much that his failure to perform these experiments has had too crippling effect on his physical intuitions. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 18:47, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::Well, in all fairness, it's good to know that the person has some connection with how theories are verified in practice. But as I pointed out above, experimental experience is a requirement of the Princeton physics Ph.D.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 18:51, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== String theory "unrelated" to known forces in nature? ==
In the article introduction, the claim is made that it has been proven that string theory is unrelated to any known forces in nature. This sounds manifestly untrue. For example, in bosonic string theory, a massless vector boson appears in a natural way. Those familiar with quantum field theory will recognize this particle as a photon, which mediates the electrodynamic force. So how about we amend that comment?--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:47, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

I went ahead and amended statements saying that string theory cannot predict any real particles in nature (since it predicts the photon at the very least). I did, however, make sure there was a statement saying that the status of string theory as a genuine theory of everything remained uncertain.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:56, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

: No, string theory does not predict the photon. Saying that it can accommodate a massless vector boson means nothing. It does not tell us anything about photons. I also disagree with saying that there is uncertainty about string theory being a genuine theory of everything. It is a settled matter. String theory is not a theory of anything (in the physical world). [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:01, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Out of curiousity, what makes you so certain of this? Do you have any background in string theory? I mean, consider this: suppose you have a theory with a massless vector boson, A. There's really only one gauge-invariant kinetic term you can construct out of it, namely dA^*dA. Well, as soon as you have that kinetic term in a Lagrangian, then boom, you have Maxwell's equations. So, um, yeah, accommodating a vector boson does indeed predict things like photons and electromagnetic fields. If you still disagree I am interested to know what your source is.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 16:13, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

: What you are describing was known decades before string theory. It is not a prediction of string theory in any shape or form. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:06, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== Falsifiability is from Pragmatism, not Positivism ==

Advocates of logical positivism such as Wittgenstein, Carnap, et. al. held that scientific propositions should be ''verifiable'', thus the name "positivism". The question became what, exactly, it meant for something to be verifiable, so the logical positivists developed a theory of logic & language to be put to use in the course of empirical investigations.

Karl Popper and W.V. Quine were the pragmatists who took issue with the positivist position of verifiability and required a ''falsifiability'' condition from empirical claims on the grounds that one could never actually verify a claim through empirical investigation, but one could most assuredly prove it wrong through experimentation.

Because of the strong mathematical content of String Theory, a positivist would be more likely to accept it as a scientific theory than a pragmatist.

: Your comments here make sense to me, and were consistent with my original entry until someone else changed it. How about fixing up the entry itself with your improvements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 25 February 2007 (EST)

== Completeness and Computability ==

This:

"However it is not yet demonstrated that the theory is insoluble (see the Incompleteness theorem): that is, while string theory is not yet provable, it has not been shown to be unprovable. As an analogy, it can be suggested that all objects become green when they are not being observed: this is a model which is unprovable in principle, and therefore unscientific."

Makes no sense whatsoever. This is confusing the mathematical notions of completeness and independence with the ability to disprove something through empirical means. One does not show by mathematical means that a potentially empirical claim is indeed falsifiable, that must be done by considering the claims of the theory and the manner in which they are phrased. If string theory were to predict certain particles in certain abundances, or something similar, then the theory would be falsifiable, in the same way that quantum field theory is rendered falsifiable by the Higgs mechanism. What's more, only the mathematics may be subjected to the incompleteness theorem. As all of physics relies on extremely rich mathematics that are, under Godel's theorem, incomplete while, at the same time, remaining falsifiable, it seems ridiculous to suggest that the completeness or incompleteness of the mathematics should have any bearing on the falsifiability of the claims in question.

: I agree. I also found senseless the reference to the incompleteness theorem. It almost looks like vandalism. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

What's more, it is extremely unlikely that incompleteness has any bearing on any physics anywhere in any way -- the ties between computability and completeness prevent this from happening. A physically realizable state is always computable, in any context. The system giving rise to that realization is doing the computation! Invoking Incompleteness here is pure hogwash.

: Right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

In the last sentence, we've gotten confused again. The first part of the article made appeal to falsifiability, and now in the last sentence we're requiring positive establishment. For consistency with the first part of the article, the author should have said "The claim that all objects become green when they are not observed is not falsifiable". (And I doubt that even this is true, since a lack of the required mechanism to render objects green falsifies the statement).

Finally, String Theory's central claims are put in a way that are falsifiable, as long as we have the ability to probe the energies and scales required. The fact that we don't have the technology does not have any bearing on the lingual structure of the claims.

: Well ... will there be any way to falsify it in the foreseeable future? If not, then it's not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

It is enough to note that, to date, no evidence has been found to support string theory. That's it.

: The criticism should be a bit stronger. There is "no evidence" found to support claims that Atlas isn't holding up the earth in a new dimension either. The stronger point that String theory isn't really science should be made.

: Also, please sign your discussion at some point, or else it becomes hard to see who said what. The signature box is the second from the right above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:: There ''will'' be a way (or ways) to falsify it in the future - if the particles predicted/required by the various string theories don't actually show up when we have particle accelerators big enough to generate the energies required for those particles to form. Yes it is not testable now but should be in the future. I don't see why we should disregard something purely because right now we don't have the technology to test it. Are we luddites or can we accept the ''possible'' validity of a theory which ''does'' seem to imply a huge amount of underlying structure in the way the universe is made. I am not saying that we should consider string theory as fact, but do not discount the possibility of it being validated in the future.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:String theory

2009-06-16T22:51:08Z

Lemonpeel: /* Witten, the History Major */

== Witten, the History Major ==
I believe this fact is true, but how relevant is its inclusion here? As written, it almost makes it sound like Witten is lacking in qualifications. Obviously nothing could be further from the truth. His insights from string theory have contributed to revolutions in mathematics. Almost every topic of research in geometry bears his name: Seiberg-Witten theory, the Witten complex, the Witten index, Gromov-Witten theory, it just goes on and on. According to Nature, he has the highest h-index of any living physicist. AND, he's won the Fields Medal. So possibly he deserves a little respect.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 17:37, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:Witten may be a fabulous mathematician. He may be a great historian also. But it's a common flaw of [[liberal]] thinking to insist that because someone is good in one academic field, he must be an expert in another.

:In fact, great literary writers, for example, are usually not great physicists. Physics, I hope you'd agree, is the study of physical world and that usually requires an interest and skill at conducting experiments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
::Not to worry--having taught history majors for 40 years I can assure everyone that having a BA degree in history does not indicate being a great literary writer and does not disqualify someone from being a great scientist. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:02, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

::The attempt to discredit Witten as a physicist here seems somewhat deceitful to me -- there can really be no question of his qualifications in physics (whatever your views on string theory). Why is the subject of his undergraduate major important enough to mention, while is graduate specialty (physics, and under a Nobel laureate in physics at that) is not? He's written a number of important papers outside of string theory. Moreover, if you look through the list of Nobel laureates in physics, a good number of them have certainly done few if any experiments in their professional careers. The assertion that physicists must be skilled experimentalists is obviously specious. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:58, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

I understand your point, but hear me out: Witten received his Ph.D. in '''physics''' under the advisorship of David Gross, a Nobel-Prize winning physicist. Witten has served as a professor of '''physics''' at Princeton (1980-87), and is now at the Institute for Advanced Studies as a Charles Simonyi professor of '''physics'''. He has more awards and honors in science than I care to mention, but a few that are relevant: Fellow, American Physical Society 1984, Einstein Medal, Einstein Society of Berne, Switzerland, 1985, Dirac Medal, International Center for Theoretical Physics, 1985. You may not like his work, but you can't argue with the fact that the man is a physicist.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 18:04, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

: Witten also has a Craaford Prize [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crafoord_Prize] which is like a Nobel prize given in science-related fields to people who are not eligible to win regular Nobel prizes. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:15, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

::So if you don't win a Nobel prize, you're not a physicist? By the way, I take it from your source that you were unable to find that kind of detailed information on these pages.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 18:19, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Witten seems to be a [[Richard Dawkins]]-type. In fact, both hold (or held) non-academic positions established by the billionaire Charles Simonyi. Those Simonyi positions, in my opinion, are not real peer-reviewed professorships.

:::The Craaford Prize looks like a real liberal honor, judging by who else received it.

:::The point is simply this: has Witten ever even conducted a college-level physics experiment? Let the record reflect that as a history major he may not have, and I doubt he has since.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:30, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
:::: In answer to this question: According to the Princeton Physics Dept Website (Witten received his Ph.D. from Princeton), to qualify for the Ph.D., students must satisfy an "Experimental Requirement." It is very clear from the description of this project that they want the student to become well-versed in real laboratory work.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 18:47, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Sure, Witten is a physicist. But he is primarily respected for his accomplishments in Math, not Physics. He is never going to get that Nobel prize in Physics. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:36, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

::::Witten held professorships at Princeton (and IAS) for ten years before taking up that chaired position, so it's clearly irrelevant to his qualifications in physics. Simonyi aside, I'm not sure why conducting a college-level physics experiment is supposed to be a prerequisite to be called a physicist, particularly a theoretical physicist. Many winners of the physics Nobel do purely theoretical work (Wilczek and Gross are two recent such winners, off the top of my head). Perhaps they did experiments as undergraduates, but they almost certainly haven't since. Would you question that their work is physics? Why would that fact that Witten didn't do trivial experiments decades ago have any implications for his qualifications to do physics? I doubt very much that his failure to perform these experiments has had too crippling effect on his physical intuitions. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 18:47, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::Well, in all fairness, it's good to know that the person has some connection with how theories are verified in practice. But as I pointed out above, experimental experience is a requirement of the Princeton degree.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 18:51, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== String theory "unrelated" to known forces in nature? ==
In the article introduction, the claim is made that it has been proven that string theory is unrelated to any known forces in nature. This sounds manifestly untrue. For example, in bosonic string theory, a massless vector boson appears in a natural way. Those familiar with quantum field theory will recognize this particle as a photon, which mediates the electrodynamic force. So how about we amend that comment?--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:47, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

I went ahead and amended statements saying that string theory cannot predict any real particles in nature (since it predicts the photon at the very least). I did, however, make sure there was a statement saying that the status of string theory as a genuine theory of everything remained uncertain.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:56, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

: No, string theory does not predict the photon. Saying that it can accommodate a massless vector boson means nothing. It does not tell us anything about photons. I also disagree with saying that there is uncertainty about string theory being a genuine theory of everything. It is a settled matter. String theory is not a theory of anything (in the physical world). [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:01, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Out of curiousity, what makes you so certain of this? Do you have any background in string theory? I mean, consider this: suppose you have a theory with a massless vector boson, A. There's really only one gauge-invariant kinetic term you can construct out of it, namely dA^*dA. Well, as soon as you have that kinetic term in a Lagrangian, then boom, you have Maxwell's equations. So, um, yeah, accommodating a vector boson does indeed predict things like photons and electromagnetic fields. If you still disagree I am interested to know what your source is.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 16:13, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

: What you are describing was known decades before string theory. It is not a prediction of string theory in any shape or form. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:06, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== Falsifiability is from Pragmatism, not Positivism ==

Advocates of logical positivism such as Wittgenstein, Carnap, et. al. held that scientific propositions should be ''verifiable'', thus the name "positivism". The question became what, exactly, it meant for something to be verifiable, so the logical positivists developed a theory of logic & language to be put to use in the course of empirical investigations.

Karl Popper and W.V. Quine were the pragmatists who took issue with the positivist position of verifiability and required a ''falsifiability'' condition from empirical claims on the grounds that one could never actually verify a claim through empirical investigation, but one could most assuredly prove it wrong through experimentation.

Because of the strong mathematical content of String Theory, a positivist would be more likely to accept it as a scientific theory than a pragmatist.

: Your comments here make sense to me, and were consistent with my original entry until someone else changed it. How about fixing up the entry itself with your improvements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 25 February 2007 (EST)

== Completeness and Computability ==

This:

"However it is not yet demonstrated that the theory is insoluble (see the Incompleteness theorem): that is, while string theory is not yet provable, it has not been shown to be unprovable. As an analogy, it can be suggested that all objects become green when they are not being observed: this is a model which is unprovable in principle, and therefore unscientific."

Makes no sense whatsoever. This is confusing the mathematical notions of completeness and independence with the ability to disprove something through empirical means. One does not show by mathematical means that a potentially empirical claim is indeed falsifiable, that must be done by considering the claims of the theory and the manner in which they are phrased. If string theory were to predict certain particles in certain abundances, or something similar, then the theory would be falsifiable, in the same way that quantum field theory is rendered falsifiable by the Higgs mechanism. What's more, only the mathematics may be subjected to the incompleteness theorem. As all of physics relies on extremely rich mathematics that are, under Godel's theorem, incomplete while, at the same time, remaining falsifiable, it seems ridiculous to suggest that the completeness or incompleteness of the mathematics should have any bearing on the falsifiability of the claims in question.

: I agree. I also found senseless the reference to the incompleteness theorem. It almost looks like vandalism. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

What's more, it is extremely unlikely that incompleteness has any bearing on any physics anywhere in any way -- the ties between computability and completeness prevent this from happening. A physically realizable state is always computable, in any context. The system giving rise to that realization is doing the computation! Invoking Incompleteness here is pure hogwash.

: Right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

In the last sentence, we've gotten confused again. The first part of the article made appeal to falsifiability, and now in the last sentence we're requiring positive establishment. For consistency with the first part of the article, the author should have said "The claim that all objects become green when they are not observed is not falsifiable". (And I doubt that even this is true, since a lack of the required mechanism to render objects green falsifies the statement).

Finally, String Theory's central claims are put in a way that are falsifiable, as long as we have the ability to probe the energies and scales required. The fact that we don't have the technology does not have any bearing on the lingual structure of the claims.

: Well ... will there be any way to falsify it in the foreseeable future? If not, then it's not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

It is enough to note that, to date, no evidence has been found to support string theory. That's it.

: The criticism should be a bit stronger. There is "no evidence" found to support claims that Atlas isn't holding up the earth in a new dimension either. The stronger point that String theory isn't really science should be made.

: Also, please sign your discussion at some point, or else it becomes hard to see who said what. The signature box is the second from the right above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:: There ''will'' be a way (or ways) to falsify it in the future - if the particles predicted/required by the various string theories don't actually show up when we have particle accelerators big enough to generate the energies required for those particles to form. Yes it is not testable now but should be in the future. I don't see why we should disregard something purely because right now we don't have the technology to test it. Are we luddites or can we accept the ''possible'' validity of a theory which ''does'' seem to imply a huge amount of underlying structure in the way the universe is made. I am not saying that we should consider string theory as fact, but do not discount the possibility of it being validated in the future.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:String theory

2009-06-16T22:48:13Z

Lemonpeel: /* Witten, the History Major */

== Witten, the History Major ==
I believe this fact is true, but how relevant is its inclusion here? As written, it almost makes it sound like Witten is lacking in qualifications. Obviously nothing could be further from the truth. His insights from string theory have contributed to revolutions in mathematics. Almost every topic of research in geometry bears his name: Seiberg-Witten theory, the Witten complex, the Witten index, Gromov-Witten theory, it just goes on and on. According to Nature, he has the highest h-index of any living physicist. AND, he's won the Fields Medal. So possibly he deserves a little respect.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 17:37, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:Witten may be a fabulous mathematician. He may be a great historian also. But it's a common flaw of [[liberal]] thinking to insist that because someone is good in one academic field, he must be an expert in another.

:In fact, great literary writers, for example, are usually not great physicists. Physics, I hope you'd agree, is the study of physical world and that usually requires an interest and skill at conducting experiments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
::Not to worry--having taught history majors for 40 years I can assure everyone that having a BA degree in history does not indicate being a great literary writer and does not disqualify someone from being a great scientist. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:02, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

::The attempt to discredit Witten as a physicist here seems somewhat deceitful to me -- there can really be no question of his qualifications in physics (whatever your views on string theory). Why is the subject of his undergraduate major important enough to mention, while is graduate specialty (physics, and under a Nobel laureate in physics at that) is not? He's written a number of important papers outside of string theory. Moreover, if you look through the list of Nobel laureates in physics, a good number of them have certainly done few if any experiments in their professional careers. The assertion that physicists must be skilled experimentalists is obviously specious. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:58, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

I understand your point, but hear me out: Witten received his Ph.D. in '''physics''' under the advisorship of David Gross, a Nobel-Prize winning physicist. Witten has served as a professor of '''physics''' at Princeton (1980-87), and is now at the Institute for Advanced Studies as a Charles Simonyi professor of '''physics'''. He has more awards and honors in science than I care to mention, but a few that are relevant: Fellow, American Physical Society 1984, Einstein Medal, Einstein Society of Berne, Switzerland, 1985, Dirac Medal, International Center for Theoretical Physics, 1985. You may not like his work, but you can't argue with the fact that the man is a physicist.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 18:04, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

: Witten also has a Craaford Prize [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crafoord_Prize] which is like a Nobel prize given in science-related fields to people who are not eligible to win regular Nobel prizes. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:15, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

::So if you don't win a Nobel prize, you're not a physicist? By the way, I take it from your source that you were unable to find that kind of detailed information on these pages.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 18:19, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Witten seems to be a [[Richard Dawkins]]-type. In fact, both hold (or held) non-academic positions established by the billionaire Charles Simonyi. Those Simonyi positions, in my opinion, are not real peer-reviewed professorships.

:::The Craaford Prize looks like a real liberal honor, judging by who else received it.

:::The point is simply this: has Witten ever even conducted a college-level physics experiment? Let the record reflect that as a history major he may not have, and I doubt he has since.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:30, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
:::: In answer to this question: According to the Princeton Physics Dept Website (Witten received his Ph.D. from Princeton), to qualify for the Ph.D., students must satisfy an "Experimental Requirement." It is very clear from the description of this project that they want the student to become well-versed in real laboratory work.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 18:47, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Sure, Witten is a physicist. But he is primarily respected for his accomplishments in Math, not Physics. He is never going to get that Nobel prize in Physics. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:36, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

::::Witten held professorships at Princeton (and IAS) for ten years before taking up that chaired position, so it's clearly irrelevant to his qualifications in physics. Simonyi aside, I'm not sure why conducting a college-level physics experiment is supposed to be a prerequisite to be called a physicist, particularly a theoretical physicist. Many winners of the physics Nobel do purely theoretical work (Wilczek and Gross are two recent such winners, off the top of my head). Perhaps they did experiments as undergraduates, but they almost certainly haven't since. Would you question that their work is physics? Why would that fact that Witten didn't do trivial experiments decades ago have any implications for his qualifications to do physics? I doubt very much that his failure to perform these experiments has had too crippling effect on his physical intuitions. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 18:47, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== String theory "unrelated" to known forces in nature? ==
In the article introduction, the claim is made that it has been proven that string theory is unrelated to any known forces in nature. This sounds manifestly untrue. For example, in bosonic string theory, a massless vector boson appears in a natural way. Those familiar with quantum field theory will recognize this particle as a photon, which mediates the electrodynamic force. So how about we amend that comment?--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:47, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

I went ahead and amended statements saying that string theory cannot predict any real particles in nature (since it predicts the photon at the very least). I did, however, make sure there was a statement saying that the status of string theory as a genuine theory of everything remained uncertain.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:56, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

: No, string theory does not predict the photon. Saying that it can accommodate a massless vector boson means nothing. It does not tell us anything about photons. I also disagree with saying that there is uncertainty about string theory being a genuine theory of everything. It is a settled matter. String theory is not a theory of anything (in the physical world). [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:01, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Out of curiousity, what makes you so certain of this? Do you have any background in string theory? I mean, consider this: suppose you have a theory with a massless vector boson, A. There's really only one gauge-invariant kinetic term you can construct out of it, namely dA^*dA. Well, as soon as you have that kinetic term in a Lagrangian, then boom, you have Maxwell's equations. So, um, yeah, accommodating a vector boson does indeed predict things like photons and electromagnetic fields. If you still disagree I am interested to know what your source is.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 16:13, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

: What you are describing was known decades before string theory. It is not a prediction of string theory in any shape or form. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:06, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== Falsifiability is from Pragmatism, not Positivism ==

Advocates of logical positivism such as Wittgenstein, Carnap, et. al. held that scientific propositions should be ''verifiable'', thus the name "positivism". The question became what, exactly, it meant for something to be verifiable, so the logical positivists developed a theory of logic & language to be put to use in the course of empirical investigations.

Karl Popper and W.V. Quine were the pragmatists who took issue with the positivist position of verifiability and required a ''falsifiability'' condition from empirical claims on the grounds that one could never actually verify a claim through empirical investigation, but one could most assuredly prove it wrong through experimentation.

Because of the strong mathematical content of String Theory, a positivist would be more likely to accept it as a scientific theory than a pragmatist.

: Your comments here make sense to me, and were consistent with my original entry until someone else changed it. How about fixing up the entry itself with your improvements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 25 February 2007 (EST)

== Completeness and Computability ==

This:

"However it is not yet demonstrated that the theory is insoluble (see the Incompleteness theorem): that is, while string theory is not yet provable, it has not been shown to be unprovable. As an analogy, it can be suggested that all objects become green when they are not being observed: this is a model which is unprovable in principle, and therefore unscientific."

Makes no sense whatsoever. This is confusing the mathematical notions of completeness and independence with the ability to disprove something through empirical means. One does not show by mathematical means that a potentially empirical claim is indeed falsifiable, that must be done by considering the claims of the theory and the manner in which they are phrased. If string theory were to predict certain particles in certain abundances, or something similar, then the theory would be falsifiable, in the same way that quantum field theory is rendered falsifiable by the Higgs mechanism. What's more, only the mathematics may be subjected to the incompleteness theorem. As all of physics relies on extremely rich mathematics that are, under Godel's theorem, incomplete while, at the same time, remaining falsifiable, it seems ridiculous to suggest that the completeness or incompleteness of the mathematics should have any bearing on the falsifiability of the claims in question.

: I agree. I also found senseless the reference to the incompleteness theorem. It almost looks like vandalism. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

What's more, it is extremely unlikely that incompleteness has any bearing on any physics anywhere in any way -- the ties between computability and completeness prevent this from happening. A physically realizable state is always computable, in any context. The system giving rise to that realization is doing the computation! Invoking Incompleteness here is pure hogwash.

: Right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

In the last sentence, we've gotten confused again. The first part of the article made appeal to falsifiability, and now in the last sentence we're requiring positive establishment. For consistency with the first part of the article, the author should have said "The claim that all objects become green when they are not observed is not falsifiable". (And I doubt that even this is true, since a lack of the required mechanism to render objects green falsifies the statement).

Finally, String Theory's central claims are put in a way that are falsifiable, as long as we have the ability to probe the energies and scales required. The fact that we don't have the technology does not have any bearing on the lingual structure of the claims.

: Well ... will there be any way to falsify it in the foreseeable future? If not, then it's not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

It is enough to note that, to date, no evidence has been found to support string theory. That's it.

: The criticism should be a bit stronger. There is "no evidence" found to support claims that Atlas isn't holding up the earth in a new dimension either. The stronger point that String theory isn't really science should be made.

: Also, please sign your discussion at some point, or else it becomes hard to see who said what. The signature box is the second from the right above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:: There ''will'' be a way (or ways) to falsify it in the future - if the particles predicted/required by the various string theories don't actually show up when we have particle accelerators big enough to generate the energies required for those particles to form. Yes it is not testable now but should be in the future. I don't see why we should disregard something purely because right now we don't have the technology to test it. Are we luddites or can we accept the ''possible'' validity of a theory which ''does'' seem to imply a huge amount of underlying structure in the way the universe is made. I am not saying that we should consider string theory as fact, but do not discount the possibility of it being validated in the future.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:String theory

2009-06-16T22:47:38Z

Lemonpeel: /* Witten, the History Major */

== Witten, the History Major ==
I believe this fact is true, but how relevant is its inclusion here? As written, it almost makes it sound like Witten is lacking in qualifications. Obviously nothing could be further from the truth. His insights from string theory have contributed to revolutions in mathematics. Almost every topic of research in geometry bears his name: Seiberg-Witten theory, the Witten complex, the Witten index, Gromov-Witten theory, it just goes on and on. According to Nature, he has the highest h-index of any living physicist. AND, he's won the Fields Medal. So possibly he deserves a little respect.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 17:37, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:Witten may be a fabulous mathematician. He may be a great historian also. But it's a common flaw of [[liberal]] thinking to insist that because someone is good in one academic field, he must be an expert in another.

:In fact, great literary writers, for example, are usually not great physicists. Physics, I hope you'd agree, is the study of physical world and that usually requires an interest and skill at conducting experiments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
::Not to worry--having taught history majors for 40 years I can assure everyone that having a BA degree in history does not indicate being a great literary writer and does not disqualify someone from being a great scientist. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:02, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

::The attempt to discredit Witten as a physicist here seems somewhat deceitful to me -- there can really be no question of his qualifications in physics (whatever your views on string theory). Why is the subject of his undergraduate major important enough to mention, while is graduate specialty (physics, and under a Nobel laureate in physics at that) is not? He's written a number of important papers outside of string theory. Moreover, if you look through the list of Nobel laureates in physics, a good number of them have certainly done few if any experiments in their professional careers. The assertion that physicists must be skilled experimentalists is obviously specious. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:58, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

I understand your point, but hear me out: Witten received his Ph.D. in '''physics''' under the advisorship of David Gross, a Nobel-Prize winning physicist. Witten has served as a professor of '''physics''' at Princeton (1980-87), and is now at the Institute for Advanced Studies as a Charles Simonyi professor of '''physics'''. He has more awards and honors in science than I care to mention, but a few that are relevant: Fellow, American Physical Society 1984, Einstein Medal, Einstein Society of Berne, Switzerland, 1985, Dirac Medal, International Center for Theoretical Physics, 1985. You may not like his work, but you can't argue with the fact that the man is a physicist.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 18:04, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

: Witten also has a Craaford Prize [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crafoord_Prize] which is like a Nobel prize given in science-related fields to people who are not eligible to win regular Nobel prizes. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:15, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

::So if you don't win a Nobel prize, you're not a physicist? By the way, I take it from your source that you were unable to find that kind of detailed information on these pages.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 18:19, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Witten seems to be a [[Richard Dawkins]]-type. In fact, both hold (or held) non-academic positions established by the billionaire Charles Simonyi. Those Simonyi positions, in my opinion, are not real peer-reviewed professorships.

:::The Craaford Prize looks like a real liberal honor, judging by who else received it.

:::The point is simply this: has Witten ever even conducted a college-level physics experiment? Let the record reflect that as a history major he may not have, and I doubt he has since.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:30, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
::: In answer to this question: According to the Princeton Physics Dept Website (Witten received his Ph.D. from Princeton), to qualify for the Ph.D., students must satisfy an "Experimental Requirement." It is very clear from the description of this project that they want the student to become well-versed in real laboratory work.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 18:47, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Sure, Witten is a physicist. But he is primarily respected for his accomplishments in Math, not Physics. He is never going to get that Nobel prize in Physics. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:36, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== String theory "unrelated" to known forces in nature? ==
In the article introduction, the claim is made that it has been proven that string theory is unrelated to any known forces in nature. This sounds manifestly untrue. For example, in bosonic string theory, a massless vector boson appears in a natural way. Those familiar with quantum field theory will recognize this particle as a photon, which mediates the electrodynamic force. So how about we amend that comment?--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:47, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

I went ahead and amended statements saying that string theory cannot predict any real particles in nature (since it predicts the photon at the very least). I did, however, make sure there was a statement saying that the status of string theory as a genuine theory of everything remained uncertain.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:56, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

: No, string theory does not predict the photon. Saying that it can accommodate a massless vector boson means nothing. It does not tell us anything about photons. I also disagree with saying that there is uncertainty about string theory being a genuine theory of everything. It is a settled matter. String theory is not a theory of anything (in the physical world). [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:01, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Out of curiousity, what makes you so certain of this? Do you have any background in string theory? I mean, consider this: suppose you have a theory with a massless vector boson, A. There's really only one gauge-invariant kinetic term you can construct out of it, namely dA^*dA. Well, as soon as you have that kinetic term in a Lagrangian, then boom, you have Maxwell's equations. So, um, yeah, accommodating a vector boson does indeed predict things like photons and electromagnetic fields. If you still disagree I am interested to know what your source is.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 16:13, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

: What you are describing was known decades before string theory. It is not a prediction of string theory in any shape or form. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:06, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== Falsifiability is from Pragmatism, not Positivism ==

Advocates of logical positivism such as Wittgenstein, Carnap, et. al. held that scientific propositions should be ''verifiable'', thus the name "positivism". The question became what, exactly, it meant for something to be verifiable, so the logical positivists developed a theory of logic & language to be put to use in the course of empirical investigations.

Karl Popper and W.V. Quine were the pragmatists who took issue with the positivist position of verifiability and required a ''falsifiability'' condition from empirical claims on the grounds that one could never actually verify a claim through empirical investigation, but one could most assuredly prove it wrong through experimentation.

Because of the strong mathematical content of String Theory, a positivist would be more likely to accept it as a scientific theory than a pragmatist.

: Your comments here make sense to me, and were consistent with my original entry until someone else changed it. How about fixing up the entry itself with your improvements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 25 February 2007 (EST)

== Completeness and Computability ==

This:

"However it is not yet demonstrated that the theory is insoluble (see the Incompleteness theorem): that is, while string theory is not yet provable, it has not been shown to be unprovable. As an analogy, it can be suggested that all objects become green when they are not being observed: this is a model which is unprovable in principle, and therefore unscientific."

Makes no sense whatsoever. This is confusing the mathematical notions of completeness and independence with the ability to disprove something through empirical means. One does not show by mathematical means that a potentially empirical claim is indeed falsifiable, that must be done by considering the claims of the theory and the manner in which they are phrased. If string theory were to predict certain particles in certain abundances, or something similar, then the theory would be falsifiable, in the same way that quantum field theory is rendered falsifiable by the Higgs mechanism. What's more, only the mathematics may be subjected to the incompleteness theorem. As all of physics relies on extremely rich mathematics that are, under Godel's theorem, incomplete while, at the same time, remaining falsifiable, it seems ridiculous to suggest that the completeness or incompleteness of the mathematics should have any bearing on the falsifiability of the claims in question.

: I agree. I also found senseless the reference to the incompleteness theorem. It almost looks like vandalism. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

What's more, it is extremely unlikely that incompleteness has any bearing on any physics anywhere in any way -- the ties between computability and completeness prevent this from happening. A physically realizable state is always computable, in any context. The system giving rise to that realization is doing the computation! Invoking Incompleteness here is pure hogwash.

: Right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

In the last sentence, we've gotten confused again. The first part of the article made appeal to falsifiability, and now in the last sentence we're requiring positive establishment. For consistency with the first part of the article, the author should have said "The claim that all objects become green when they are not observed is not falsifiable". (And I doubt that even this is true, since a lack of the required mechanism to render objects green falsifies the statement).

Finally, String Theory's central claims are put in a way that are falsifiable, as long as we have the ability to probe the energies and scales required. The fact that we don't have the technology does not have any bearing on the lingual structure of the claims.

: Well ... will there be any way to falsify it in the foreseeable future? If not, then it's not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

It is enough to note that, to date, no evidence has been found to support string theory. That's it.

: The criticism should be a bit stronger. There is "no evidence" found to support claims that Atlas isn't holding up the earth in a new dimension either. The stronger point that String theory isn't really science should be made.

: Also, please sign your discussion at some point, or else it becomes hard to see who said what. The signature box is the second from the right above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:: There ''will'' be a way (or ways) to falsify it in the future - if the particles predicted/required by the various string theories don't actually show up when we have particle accelerators big enough to generate the energies required for those particles to form. Yes it is not testable now but should be in the future. I don't see why we should disregard something purely because right now we don't have the technology to test it. Are we luddites or can we accept the ''possible'' validity of a theory which ''does'' seem to imply a huge amount of underlying structure in the way the universe is made. I am not saying that we should consider string theory as fact, but do not discount the possibility of it being validated in the future.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:String theory

2009-06-16T22:19:25Z

Lemonpeel: /* Witten, the History Major */

== Witten, the History Major ==
I believe this fact is true, but how relevant is its inclusion here? As written, it almost makes it sound like Witten is lacking in qualifications. Obviously nothing could be further from the truth. His insights from string theory have contributed to revolutions in mathematics. Almost every topic of research in geometry bears his name: Seiberg-Witten theory, the Witten complex, the Witten index, Gromov-Witten theory, it just goes on and on. According to Nature, he has the highest h-index of any living physicist. AND, he's won the Fields Medal. So possibly he deserves a little respect.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 17:37, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:Witten may be a fabulous mathematician. He may be a great historian also. But it's a common flaw of [[liberal]] thinking to insist that because someone is good in one academic field, he must be an expert in another.

:In fact, great literary writers, for example, are usually not great physicists. Physics, I hope you'd agree, is the study of physical world and that usually requires an interest and skill at conducting experiments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
::Not to worry--having taught history majors for 40 years I can assure everyone that having a BA degree in history does not indicate being a great literary writer and does not disqualify someone from being a great scientist. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:02, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

::The attempt to discredit Witten as a physicist here seems somewhat deceitful to me -- there can really be no question of his qualifications in physics (whatever your views on string theory). Why is the subject of his undergraduate major important enough to mention, while is graduate specialty (physics, and under a Nobel laureate in physics at that) is not? He's written a number of important papers outside of string theory. Moreover, if you look through the list of Nobel laureates in physics, a good number of them have certainly done few if any experiments in their professional careers. The assertion that physicists must be skilled experimentalists is obviously specious. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:58, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

I understand your point, but hear me out: Witten received his Ph.D. in '''physics''' under the advisorship of David Gross, a Nobel-Prize winning physicist. Witten has served as a professor of '''physics''' at Princeton (1980-87), and is now at the Institute for Advanced Studies as a Charles Simonyi professor of '''physics'''. He has more awards and honors in science than I care to mention, but a few that are relevant: Fellow, American Physical Society 1984, Einstein Medal, Einstein Society of Berne, Switzerland, 1985, Dirac Medal, International Center for Theoretical Physics, 1985. You may not like his work, but you can't argue with the fact that the man is a physicist.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 18:04, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

: Witten also has a Craaford Prize [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crafoord_Prize] which is like a Nobel prize given in science-related fields to people who are not eligible to win regular Nobel prizes. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:15, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

::So if you don't win a Nobel prize, you're not a physicist? By the way, I take it from your source that you were unable to find that kind of detailed information on these pages.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 18:19, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== String theory "unrelated" to known forces in nature? ==
In the article introduction, the claim is made that it has been proven that string theory is unrelated to any known forces in nature. This sounds manifestly untrue. For example, in bosonic string theory, a massless vector boson appears in a natural way. Those familiar with quantum field theory will recognize this particle as a photon, which mediates the electrodynamic force. So how about we amend that comment?--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:47, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

I went ahead and amended statements saying that string theory cannot predict any real particles in nature (since it predicts the photon at the very least). I did, however, make sure there was a statement saying that the status of string theory as a genuine theory of everything remained uncertain.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:56, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

: No, string theory does not predict the photon. Saying that it can accommodate a massless vector boson means nothing. It does not tell us anything about photons. I also disagree with saying that there is uncertainty about string theory being a genuine theory of everything. It is a settled matter. String theory is not a theory of anything (in the physical world). [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:01, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Out of curiousity, what makes you so certain of this? Do you have any background in string theory? I mean, consider this: suppose you have a theory with a massless vector boson, A. There's really only one gauge-invariant kinetic term you can construct out of it, namely dA^*dA. Well, as soon as you have that kinetic term in a Lagrangian, then boom, you have Maxwell's equations. So, um, yeah, accommodating a vector boson does indeed predict things like photons and electromagnetic fields. If you still disagree I am interested to know what your source is.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 16:13, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

: What you are describing was known decades before string theory. It is not a prediction of string theory in any shape or form. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:06, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== Falsifiability is from Pragmatism, not Positivism ==

Advocates of logical positivism such as Wittgenstein, Carnap, et. al. held that scientific propositions should be ''verifiable'', thus the name "positivism". The question became what, exactly, it meant for something to be verifiable, so the logical positivists developed a theory of logic & language to be put to use in the course of empirical investigations.

Karl Popper and W.V. Quine were the pragmatists who took issue with the positivist position of verifiability and required a ''falsifiability'' condition from empirical claims on the grounds that one could never actually verify a claim through empirical investigation, but one could most assuredly prove it wrong through experimentation.

Because of the strong mathematical content of String Theory, a positivist would be more likely to accept it as a scientific theory than a pragmatist.

: Your comments here make sense to me, and were consistent with my original entry until someone else changed it. How about fixing up the entry itself with your improvements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 25 February 2007 (EST)

== Completeness and Computability ==

This:

"However it is not yet demonstrated that the theory is insoluble (see the Incompleteness theorem): that is, while string theory is not yet provable, it has not been shown to be unprovable. As an analogy, it can be suggested that all objects become green when they are not being observed: this is a model which is unprovable in principle, and therefore unscientific."

Makes no sense whatsoever. This is confusing the mathematical notions of completeness and independence with the ability to disprove something through empirical means. One does not show by mathematical means that a potentially empirical claim is indeed falsifiable, that must be done by considering the claims of the theory and the manner in which they are phrased. If string theory were to predict certain particles in certain abundances, or something similar, then the theory would be falsifiable, in the same way that quantum field theory is rendered falsifiable by the Higgs mechanism. What's more, only the mathematics may be subjected to the incompleteness theorem. As all of physics relies on extremely rich mathematics that are, under Godel's theorem, incomplete while, at the same time, remaining falsifiable, it seems ridiculous to suggest that the completeness or incompleteness of the mathematics should have any bearing on the falsifiability of the claims in question.

: I agree. I also found senseless the reference to the incompleteness theorem. It almost looks like vandalism. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

What's more, it is extremely unlikely that incompleteness has any bearing on any physics anywhere in any way -- the ties between computability and completeness prevent this from happening. A physically realizable state is always computable, in any context. The system giving rise to that realization is doing the computation! Invoking Incompleteness here is pure hogwash.

: Right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

In the last sentence, we've gotten confused again. The first part of the article made appeal to falsifiability, and now in the last sentence we're requiring positive establishment. For consistency with the first part of the article, the author should have said "The claim that all objects become green when they are not observed is not falsifiable". (And I doubt that even this is true, since a lack of the required mechanism to render objects green falsifies the statement).

Finally, String Theory's central claims are put in a way that are falsifiable, as long as we have the ability to probe the energies and scales required. The fact that we don't have the technology does not have any bearing on the lingual structure of the claims.

: Well ... will there be any way to falsify it in the foreseeable future? If not, then it's not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

It is enough to note that, to date, no evidence has been found to support string theory. That's it.

: The criticism should be a bit stronger. There is "no evidence" found to support claims that Atlas isn't holding up the earth in a new dimension either. The stronger point that String theory isn't really science should be made.

: Also, please sign your discussion at some point, or else it becomes hard to see who said what. The signature box is the second from the right above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:: There ''will'' be a way (or ways) to falsify it in the future - if the particles predicted/required by the various string theories don't actually show up when we have particle accelerators big enough to generate the energies required for those particles to form. Yes it is not testable now but should be in the future. I don't see why we should disregard something purely because right now we don't have the technology to test it. Are we luddites or can we accept the ''possible'' validity of a theory which ''does'' seem to imply a huge amount of underlying structure in the way the universe is made. I am not saying that we should consider string theory as fact, but do not discount the possibility of it being validated in the future.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:String theory

2009-06-16T22:09:02Z

Lemonpeel: /* Witten, the History Major */ mis-wrote something, so corrected it

== Witten, the History Major ==
I believe this fact is true, but how relevant is its inclusion here? As written, it almost makes it sound like Witten is lacking in qualifications. Obviously nothing could be further from the truth. His insights from string theory have contributed to revolutions in mathematics. Almost every topic of research in geometry bears his name: Seiberg-Witten theory, the Witten complex, the Witten index, Gromov-Witten theory, it just goes on and on. According to Nature, he has the highest h-index of any living physicist. AND, he's won the Fields Medal. So possibly he deserves a little respect.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 17:37, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:Witten may be a fabulous mathematician. He may be a great historian also. But it's a common flaw of [[liberal]] thinking to insist that because someone is good in one academic field, he must be an expert in another.

:In fact, great literary writers, for example, are usually not great physicists. Physics, I hope you'd agree, is the study of physical world and that usually requires an interest and skill at conducting experiments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
::Not to worry--having taught history majors for 40 years I can assure everyone that having a BA degree in history does not indicate being a great literary writer and does not disqualify someone from being a great scientist. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:02, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

::The attempt to discredit Witten as a physicist here seems somewhat deceitful to me -- there can really be no question of his qualifications in physics (whatever your views on string theory). Why is the subject of his undergraduate major important enough to mention, while is graduate specialty (physics, and under a Nobel laureate in physics at that) is not? He's written a number of important papers outside of string theory. Moreover, if you look through the list of Nobel laureates in physics, a good number of them have certainly done few if any experiments in their professional careers. The assertion that physicists must be skilled experimentalists is obviously specious. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:58, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

I understand your point, but hear me out: Witten received his Ph.D. in '''physics''' under the advisorship of David Gross, a Nobel-Prize winning physicist. Witten has served as a professor of '''physics''' at Princeton (1980-87), and is now at the Institute for Advanced Studies as a Charles Simonyi professor of '''physics'''. He has more awards and honors in science than I care to mention, but a few that are relevant: Fellow, American Physical Society 1984, Einstein Medal, Einstein Society of Berne, Switzerland, 1985, Dirac Medal, International Center for Theoretical Physics, 1985. You may not like his work, but you can't argue with the fact that the man is a physicist.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 18:04, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== String theory "unrelated" to known forces in nature? ==
In the article introduction, the claim is made that it has been proven that string theory is unrelated to any known forces in nature. This sounds manifestly untrue. For example, in bosonic string theory, a massless vector boson appears in a natural way. Those familiar with quantum field theory will recognize this particle as a photon, which mediates the electrodynamic force. So how about we amend that comment?--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:47, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

I went ahead and amended statements saying that string theory cannot predict any real particles in nature (since it predicts the photon at the very least). I did, however, make sure there was a statement saying that the status of string theory as a genuine theory of everything remained uncertain.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:56, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

: No, string theory does not predict the photon. Saying that it can accommodate a massless vector boson means nothing. It does not tell us anything about photons. I also disagree with saying that there is uncertainty about string theory being a genuine theory of everything. It is a settled matter. String theory is not a theory of anything (in the physical world). [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:01, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Out of curiousity, what makes you so certain of this? Do you have any background in string theory? I mean, consider this: suppose you have a theory with a massless vector boson, A. There's really only one gauge-invariant kinetic term you can construct out of it, namely dA^*dA. Well, as soon as you have that kinetic term in a Lagrangian, then boom, you have Maxwell's equations. So, um, yeah, accommodating a vector boson does indeed predict things like photons and electromagnetic fields. If you still disagree I am interested to know what your source is.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 16:13, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

: What you are describing was known decades before string theory. It is not a prediction of string theory in any shape or form. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:06, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== Falsifiability is from Pragmatism, not Positivism ==

Advocates of logical positivism such as Wittgenstein, Carnap, et. al. held that scientific propositions should be ''verifiable'', thus the name "positivism". The question became what, exactly, it meant for something to be verifiable, so the logical positivists developed a theory of logic & language to be put to use in the course of empirical investigations.

Karl Popper and W.V. Quine were the pragmatists who took issue with the positivist position of verifiability and required a ''falsifiability'' condition from empirical claims on the grounds that one could never actually verify a claim through empirical investigation, but one could most assuredly prove it wrong through experimentation.

Because of the strong mathematical content of String Theory, a positivist would be more likely to accept it as a scientific theory than a pragmatist.

: Your comments here make sense to me, and were consistent with my original entry until someone else changed it. How about fixing up the entry itself with your improvements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 25 February 2007 (EST)

== Completeness and Computability ==

This:

"However it is not yet demonstrated that the theory is insoluble (see the Incompleteness theorem): that is, while string theory is not yet provable, it has not been shown to be unprovable. As an analogy, it can be suggested that all objects become green when they are not being observed: this is a model which is unprovable in principle, and therefore unscientific."

Makes no sense whatsoever. This is confusing the mathematical notions of completeness and independence with the ability to disprove something through empirical means. One does not show by mathematical means that a potentially empirical claim is indeed falsifiable, that must be done by considering the claims of the theory and the manner in which they are phrased. If string theory were to predict certain particles in certain abundances, or something similar, then the theory would be falsifiable, in the same way that quantum field theory is rendered falsifiable by the Higgs mechanism. What's more, only the mathematics may be subjected to the incompleteness theorem. As all of physics relies on extremely rich mathematics that are, under Godel's theorem, incomplete while, at the same time, remaining falsifiable, it seems ridiculous to suggest that the completeness or incompleteness of the mathematics should have any bearing on the falsifiability of the claims in question.

: I agree. I also found senseless the reference to the incompleteness theorem. It almost looks like vandalism. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

What's more, it is extremely unlikely that incompleteness has any bearing on any physics anywhere in any way -- the ties between computability and completeness prevent this from happening. A physically realizable state is always computable, in any context. The system giving rise to that realization is doing the computation! Invoking Incompleteness here is pure hogwash.

: Right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

In the last sentence, we've gotten confused again. The first part of the article made appeal to falsifiability, and now in the last sentence we're requiring positive establishment. For consistency with the first part of the article, the author should have said "The claim that all objects become green when they are not observed is not falsifiable". (And I doubt that even this is true, since a lack of the required mechanism to render objects green falsifies the statement).

Finally, String Theory's central claims are put in a way that are falsifiable, as long as we have the ability to probe the energies and scales required. The fact that we don't have the technology does not have any bearing on the lingual structure of the claims.

: Well ... will there be any way to falsify it in the foreseeable future? If not, then it's not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

It is enough to note that, to date, no evidence has been found to support string theory. That's it.

: The criticism should be a bit stronger. There is "no evidence" found to support claims that Atlas isn't holding up the earth in a new dimension either. The stronger point that String theory isn't really science should be made.

: Also, please sign your discussion at some point, or else it becomes hard to see who said what. The signature box is the second from the right above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:: There ''will'' be a way (or ways) to falsify it in the future - if the particles predicted/required by the various string theories don't actually show up when we have particle accelerators big enough to generate the energies required for those particles to form. Yes it is not testable now but should be in the future. I don't see why we should disregard something purely because right now we don't have the technology to test it. Are we luddites or can we accept the ''possible'' validity of a theory which ''does'' seem to imply a huge amount of underlying structure in the way the universe is made. I am not saying that we should consider string theory as fact, but do not discount the possibility of it being validated in the future.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:String theory

2009-06-16T22:04:48Z

Lemonpeel: /* Witten, the History Major */

== Witten, the History Major ==
I believe this fact is true, but how relevant is its inclusion here? As written, it almost makes it sound like Witten is lacking in qualifications. Obviously nothing could be further from the truth. His insights from string theory have contributed to revolutions in mathematics. Almost every topic of research in geometry bears his name: Seiberg-Witten theory, the Witten complex, the Witten index, Gromov-Witten theory, it just goes on and on. According to Nature, he has the highest h-index of any living physicist. AND, he's won the Fields Medal. So possibly he deserves a little respect.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 17:37, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:Witten may be a fabulous mathematician. He may be a great historian also. But it's a common flaw of [[liberal]] thinking to insist that because someone is good in one academic field, he must be an expert in another.

:In fact, great literary writers, for example, are usually not great physicists. Physics, I hope you'd agree, is the study of physical world and that usually requires an interest and skill at conducting experiments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
::Not to worry--having taught history majors for 40 years I can assure everyone that having a BA degree in history does not indicate being a great literary writer and does not disqualify someone from being a great scientist. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:02, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

::The attempt to discredit Witten as a physicist here seems somewhat deceitful to me -- there can really be no question of his qualifications in physics (whatever your views on string theory). Why is the subject of his undergraduate major important enough to mention, while is graduate specialty (physics, and under a Nobel laureate in physics at that) is not? He's written a number of important papers outside of string theory. Moreover, if you look through the list of Nobel laureates in physics, a good number of them have certainly done few if any experiments in their professional careers. The assertion that physicists must be skilled experimentalists is obviously specious. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 17:58, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

I understand your point, but hear me out: Witten received his Ph.D. in '''physics''' under the advisorship of David Gross, a Nobel-Prize winning physicist. Witten has served as a professor of '''physics''' at Princeton (1980-87), and is now at the Institute for Advanced Studies as a Charles Simonyi professor of '''physics'''. He has more awards and honors in science than I care to mention, but a few that are relevant: Fellow, American Physical Society 1984, Einstein Medal, Einstein Society of Berne, Switzerland, 1985, Dirac Medal, International Center for Theoretical Physics, 1985. You may not like his work, but you can't argue that the man is a physicist.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 18:04, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== String theory "unrelated" to known forces in nature? ==
In the article introduction, the claim is made that it has been proven that string theory is unrelated to any known forces in nature. This sounds manifestly untrue. For example, in bosonic string theory, a massless vector boson appears in a natural way. Those familiar with quantum field theory will recognize this particle as a photon, which mediates the electrodynamic force. So how about we amend that comment?--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:47, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

I went ahead and amended statements saying that string theory cannot predict any real particles in nature (since it predicts the photon at the very least). I did, however, make sure there was a statement saying that the status of string theory as a genuine theory of everything remained uncertain.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:56, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

: No, string theory does not predict the photon. Saying that it can accommodate a massless vector boson means nothing. It does not tell us anything about photons. I also disagree with saying that there is uncertainty about string theory being a genuine theory of everything. It is a settled matter. String theory is not a theory of anything (in the physical world). [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:01, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Out of curiousity, what makes you so certain of this? Do you have any background in string theory? I mean, consider this: suppose you have a theory with a massless vector boson, A. There's really only one gauge-invariant kinetic term you can construct out of it, namely dA^*dA. Well, as soon as you have that kinetic term in a Lagrangian, then boom, you have Maxwell's equations. So, um, yeah, accommodating a vector boson does indeed predict things like photons and electromagnetic fields. If you still disagree I am interested to know what your source is.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 16:13, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== Falsifiability is from Pragmatism, not Positivism ==

Advocates of logical positivism such as Wittgenstein, Carnap, et. al. held that scientific propositions should be ''verifiable'', thus the name "positivism". The question became what, exactly, it meant for something to be verifiable, so the logical positivists developed a theory of logic & language to be put to use in the course of empirical investigations.

Karl Popper and W.V. Quine were the pragmatists who took issue with the positivist position of verifiability and required a ''falsifiability'' condition from empirical claims on the grounds that one could never actually verify a claim through empirical investigation, but one could most assuredly prove it wrong through experimentation.

Because of the strong mathematical content of String Theory, a positivist would be more likely to accept it as a scientific theory than a pragmatist.

: Your comments here make sense to me, and were consistent with my original entry until someone else changed it. How about fixing up the entry itself with your improvements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 25 February 2007 (EST)

== Completeness and Computability ==

This:

"However it is not yet demonstrated that the theory is insoluble (see the Incompleteness theorem): that is, while string theory is not yet provable, it has not been shown to be unprovable. As an analogy, it can be suggested that all objects become green when they are not being observed: this is a model which is unprovable in principle, and therefore unscientific."

Makes no sense whatsoever. This is confusing the mathematical notions of completeness and independence with the ability to disprove something through empirical means. One does not show by mathematical means that a potentially empirical claim is indeed falsifiable, that must be done by considering the claims of the theory and the manner in which they are phrased. If string theory were to predict certain particles in certain abundances, or something similar, then the theory would be falsifiable, in the same way that quantum field theory is rendered falsifiable by the Higgs mechanism. What's more, only the mathematics may be subjected to the incompleteness theorem. As all of physics relies on extremely rich mathematics that are, under Godel's theorem, incomplete while, at the same time, remaining falsifiable, it seems ridiculous to suggest that the completeness or incompleteness of the mathematics should have any bearing on the falsifiability of the claims in question.

: I agree. I also found senseless the reference to the incompleteness theorem. It almost looks like vandalism. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

What's more, it is extremely unlikely that incompleteness has any bearing on any physics anywhere in any way -- the ties between computability and completeness prevent this from happening. A physically realizable state is always computable, in any context. The system giving rise to that realization is doing the computation! Invoking Incompleteness here is pure hogwash.

: Right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

In the last sentence, we've gotten confused again. The first part of the article made appeal to falsifiability, and now in the last sentence we're requiring positive establishment. For consistency with the first part of the article, the author should have said "The claim that all objects become green when they are not observed is not falsifiable". (And I doubt that even this is true, since a lack of the required mechanism to render objects green falsifies the statement).

Finally, String Theory's central claims are put in a way that are falsifiable, as long as we have the ability to probe the energies and scales required. The fact that we don't have the technology does not have any bearing on the lingual structure of the claims.

: Well ... will there be any way to falsify it in the foreseeable future? If not, then it's not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

It is enough to note that, to date, no evidence has been found to support string theory. That's it.

: The criticism should be a bit stronger. There is "no evidence" found to support claims that Atlas isn't holding up the earth in a new dimension either. The stronger point that String theory isn't really science should be made.

: Also, please sign your discussion at some point, or else it becomes hard to see who said what. The signature box is the second from the right above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:: There ''will'' be a way (or ways) to falsify it in the future - if the particles predicted/required by the various string theories don't actually show up when we have particle accelerators big enough to generate the energies required for those particles to form. Yes it is not testable now but should be in the future. I don't see why we should disregard something purely because right now we don't have the technology to test it. Are we luddites or can we accept the ''possible'' validity of a theory which ''does'' seem to imply a huge amount of underlying structure in the way the universe is made. I am not saying that we should consider string theory as fact, but do not discount the possibility of it being validated in the future.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:String theory

2009-06-16T21:37:02Z

Lemonpeel:

Talk:Large Hadron Collider

2009-06-16T20:23:25Z

Lemonpeel:

==Hubris==
I guess the physics community can't win can it? When they can't test a theory, like string theory, people complain it isn't science. And when they do test a theory, like the Higgs mechanism in the standard model, people call it hubris? Ugh, this is making my head hurt.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 16:23, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

==Will get to this later==
Just wanted to add, from what I have heard of/researched a bit about the LHC, the actual danger is that stranglets (a theoretical type of quark) could be potentially created and trapped within the earth's gravitational field, thus transforming all matter on earth to strange matter. Will get verification and modify as necessary. Also, I do not believe scientists at CERN actually ''deny'' the possibility, but rather the chances are so monumentally low (I have heard on the order of 1x10^-12%) that it is essentially more likely that the Earth will be destroyed in other ways. I will research this a bit and modify the article with proper citations. Cheers --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 18:32, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
:It was just a start. I know of the "strange matter" issue but I also know the major concern was the mini black holes being formed. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:34, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
:: To be clear, there is no concern in the scientific community. If there was they wouldn't have built the LHC (or any other supercollider) in the first place. As for the microscopic black holes, even if despite the infinitesimal odds one did form, it would die out nearly instantly due to Hawking radiation. It wouldn't have a large enough mass to sustain itself. You'd need something massive (a star) in order to create a self-sustaining black hole. There is ''nothing'' to be worried about. --[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 00:33, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
::: unless somewhere in the calculations someone divided by zero! --[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 03:35, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

== Discovering muons? ==

Muons have been known to exist for decades, and should be removed from this article, and gluons are not leptons, they are bosons, force mediators. Neither should be mentioned.--[[User:Freethinker|Freethinker]] 16:15, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
:Go ahead and fix the article then. I used to be able to keep all the subatomic particles straight, but it's just been too long. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:34, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:String theory

2009-06-16T20:13:17Z

Lemonpeel: /* String theory "unrelated" to known forces in nature? */

== String theory "unrelated" to known forces in nature? ==
In the article introduction, the claim is made that it has been proven that string theory is unrelated to any known forces in nature. This sounds manifestly untrue. For example, in bosonic string theory, a massless vector boson appears in a natural way. Those familiar with quantum field theory will recognize this particle as a photon, which mediates the electrodynamic force. So how about we amend that comment?--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:47, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

I went ahead and amended statements saying that string theory cannot predict any real particles in nature (since it predicts the photon at the very least). I did, however, make sure there was a statement saying that the status of string theory as a genuine theory of everything remained uncertain.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:56, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

: No, string theory does not predict the photon. Saying that it can accommodate a massless vector boson means nothing. It does not tell us anything about photons. I also disagree with saying that there is uncertainty about string theory being a genuine theory of everything. It is a settled matter. String theory is not a theory of anything (in the physical world). [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:01, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Out of curiousity, what makes you so certain of this? Do you have any background in string theory? I mean, consider this: suppose you have a theory with a massless vector boson, A. There's really only one gauge-invariant kinetic term you can construct out of it, namely dA^*dA. Well, as soon as you have that kinetic term in a Lagrangian, then boom, you have Maxwell's equations. So, um, yeah, accommodating a vector boson does indeed predict things like photons and electromagnetic fields. If you still disagree I am interested to know what your source is.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 16:13, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== Falsifiability is from Pragmatism, not Positivism ==

Advocates of logical positivism such as Wittgenstein, Carnap, et. al. held that scientific propositions should be ''verifiable'', thus the name "positivism". The question became what, exactly, it meant for something to be verifiable, so the logical positivists developed a theory of logic & language to be put to use in the course of empirical investigations.

Karl Popper and W.V. Quine were the pragmatists who took issue with the positivist position of verifiability and required a ''falsifiability'' condition from empirical claims on the grounds that one could never actually verify a claim through empirical investigation, but one could most assuredly prove it wrong through experimentation.

Because of the strong mathematical content of String Theory, a positivist would be more likely to accept it as a scientific theory than a pragmatist.

: Your comments here make sense to me, and were consistent with my original entry until someone else changed it. How about fixing up the entry itself with your improvements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 25 February 2007 (EST)

== Completeness and Computability ==

This:

"However it is not yet demonstrated that the theory is insoluble (see the Incompleteness theorem): that is, while string theory is not yet provable, it has not been shown to be unprovable. As an analogy, it can be suggested that all objects become green when they are not being observed: this is a model which is unprovable in principle, and therefore unscientific."

Makes no sense whatsoever. This is confusing the mathematical notions of completeness and independence with the ability to disprove something through empirical means. One does not show by mathematical means that a potentially empirical claim is indeed falsifiable, that must be done by considering the claims of the theory and the manner in which they are phrased. If string theory were to predict certain particles in certain abundances, or something similar, then the theory would be falsifiable, in the same way that quantum field theory is rendered falsifiable by the Higgs mechanism. What's more, only the mathematics may be subjected to the incompleteness theorem. As all of physics relies on extremely rich mathematics that are, under Godel's theorem, incomplete while, at the same time, remaining falsifiable, it seems ridiculous to suggest that the completeness or incompleteness of the mathematics should have any bearing on the falsifiability of the claims in question.

: I agree. I also found senseless the reference to the incompleteness theorem. It almost looks like vandalism. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

What's more, it is extremely unlikely that incompleteness has any bearing on any physics anywhere in any way -- the ties between computability and completeness prevent this from happening. A physically realizable state is always computable, in any context. The system giving rise to that realization is doing the computation! Invoking Incompleteness here is pure hogwash.

: Right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

In the last sentence, we've gotten confused again. The first part of the article made appeal to falsifiability, and now in the last sentence we're requiring positive establishment. For consistency with the first part of the article, the author should have said "The claim that all objects become green when they are not observed is not falsifiable". (And I doubt that even this is true, since a lack of the required mechanism to render objects green falsifies the statement).

Finally, String Theory's central claims are put in a way that are falsifiable, as long as we have the ability to probe the energies and scales required. The fact that we don't have the technology does not have any bearing on the lingual structure of the claims.

: Well ... will there be any way to falsify it in the foreseeable future? If not, then it's not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

It is enough to note that, to date, no evidence has been found to support string theory. That's it.

: The criticism should be a bit stronger. There is "no evidence" found to support claims that Atlas isn't holding up the earth in a new dimension either. The stronger point that String theory isn't really science should be made.

: Also, please sign your discussion at some point, or else it becomes hard to see who said what. The signature box is the second from the right above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:: There ''will'' be a way (or ways) to falsify it in the future - if the particles predicted/required by the various string theories don't actually show up when we have particle accelerators big enough to generate the energies required for those particles to form. Yes it is not testable now but should be in the future. I don't see why we should disregard something purely because right now we don't have the technology to test it. Are we luddites or can we accept the ''possible'' validity of a theory which ''does'' seem to imply a huge amount of underlying structure in the way the universe is made. I am not saying that we should consider string theory as fact, but do not discount the possibility of it being validated in the future.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:String theory

2009-06-16T16:56:30Z

Lemonpeel:

== String theory "unrelated" to known forces in nature? ==
In the article introduction, the claim is made that it has been proven that string theory is unrelated to any known forces in nature. This sounds manifestly untrue. For example, in bosonic string theory, a massless vector boson appears in a natural way. Those familiar with quantum field theory will recognize this particle as a photon, which mediates the electrodynamic force. So how about we amend that comment?--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:47, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

I went ahead and amended statements saying that string theory cannot predict any real particles in nature (since it predicts the photon at the very least). I did, however, make sure there was a statement saying that the status of string theory as a genuine theory of everything remained uncertain.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:56, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== Falsifiability is from Pragmatism, not Positivism ==

Advocates of logical positivism such as Wittgenstein, Carnap, et. al. held that scientific propositions should be ''verifiable'', thus the name "positivism". The question became what, exactly, it meant for something to be verifiable, so the logical positivists developed a theory of logic & language to be put to use in the course of empirical investigations.

Karl Popper and W.V. Quine were the pragmatists who took issue with the positivist position of verifiability and required a ''falsifiability'' condition from empirical claims on the grounds that one could never actually verify a claim through empirical investigation, but one could most assuredly prove it wrong through experimentation.

Because of the strong mathematical content of String Theory, a positivist would be more likely to accept it as a scientific theory than a pragmatist.

: Your comments here make sense to me, and were consistent with my original entry until someone else changed it. How about fixing up the entry itself with your improvements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 25 February 2007 (EST)

== Completeness and Computability ==

This:

"However it is not yet demonstrated that the theory is insoluble (see the Incompleteness theorem): that is, while string theory is not yet provable, it has not been shown to be unprovable. As an analogy, it can be suggested that all objects become green when they are not being observed: this is a model which is unprovable in principle, and therefore unscientific."

Makes no sense whatsoever. This is confusing the mathematical notions of completeness and independence with the ability to disprove something through empirical means. One does not show by mathematical means that a potentially empirical claim is indeed falsifiable, that must be done by considering the claims of the theory and the manner in which they are phrased. If string theory were to predict certain particles in certain abundances, or something similar, then the theory would be falsifiable, in the same way that quantum field theory is rendered falsifiable by the Higgs mechanism. What's more, only the mathematics may be subjected to the incompleteness theorem. As all of physics relies on extremely rich mathematics that are, under Godel's theorem, incomplete while, at the same time, remaining falsifiable, it seems ridiculous to suggest that the completeness or incompleteness of the mathematics should have any bearing on the falsifiability of the claims in question.

: I agree. I also found senseless the reference to the incompleteness theorem. It almost looks like vandalism. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

What's more, it is extremely unlikely that incompleteness has any bearing on any physics anywhere in any way -- the ties between computability and completeness prevent this from happening. A physically realizable state is always computable, in any context. The system giving rise to that realization is doing the computation! Invoking Incompleteness here is pure hogwash.

: Right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

In the last sentence, we've gotten confused again. The first part of the article made appeal to falsifiability, and now in the last sentence we're requiring positive establishment. For consistency with the first part of the article, the author should have said "The claim that all objects become green when they are not observed is not falsifiable". (And I doubt that even this is true, since a lack of the required mechanism to render objects green falsifies the statement).

Finally, String Theory's central claims are put in a way that are falsifiable, as long as we have the ability to probe the energies and scales required. The fact that we don't have the technology does not have any bearing on the lingual structure of the claims.

: Well ... will there be any way to falsify it in the foreseeable future? If not, then it's not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

It is enough to note that, to date, no evidence has been found to support string theory. That's it.

: The criticism should be a bit stronger. There is "no evidence" found to support claims that Atlas isn't holding up the earth in a new dimension either. The stronger point that String theory isn't really science should be made.

: Also, please sign your discussion at some point, or else it becomes hard to see who said what. The signature box is the second from the right above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:: There ''will'' be a way (or ways) to falsify it in the future - if the particles predicted/required by the various string theories don't actually show up when we have particle accelerators big enough to generate the energies required for those particles to form. Yes it is not testable now but should be in the future. I don't see why we should disregard something purely because right now we don't have the technology to test it. Are we luddites or can we accept the ''possible'' validity of a theory which ''does'' seem to imply a huge amount of underlying structure in the way the universe is made. I am not saying that we should consider string theory as fact, but do not discount the possibility of it being validated in the future.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

String theory

2009-06-16T16:53:30Z

Lemonpeel: removed inaccurate statements in intro, but retained important point that string theory is uncertain

'''String theory''', (or super-string theory when coupled with [[Supersymmetry]]), is a class of models in [[theoretical physics]] which replace zero-dimensional points (particles) in four-dimensional spacetime with one-dimensional strings in an eleven-dimensional spacetime as the fundamental building block of the universe. The elusive goal is to develop a set of equations that unify all known natural forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak, and strong), according to some preconceived philosophical beliefs about how they ought to be unified. Leading proponents of string theory have been Edward Witten of the [[Institute for Advanced Study]] and [[Brian Greene]], the renowned author of ''The Elegant Universe''.

Some physicists argue that string theory (and its alter ego M-theory) is currently the most viable candidate for a unified theory of physics which describes all forces of nature, encompassing the physics of gravity as well as quantum field theory. Major research centers include, for example, MIT, with five faculty members and numerous postdocs and graduate students working in this area.<ref> see [http://ctp.lns.mit.edu/research-strings.html MIT Center for Theoretical Physics]</ref> At present, however, the potential status of string theory as a genuine "theory of everything" remains uncertain.

Princeton University researchers have found new mathematical evidence that some aspects of string theory may be related to a well-respected body of physics called "gauge theory," which has been demonstrated to underlie the interactions among quarks and gluons, the vanishingly small objects that combine to form protons, neutrons and other, more exotic subatomic particles. The discovery, say the physicists, could open up a host of uses for string theory in attacking practical physics problems.<ref>See [http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S17/80/32S21/index.xml?section=newsreleases "Princeton physicists connect string theory with established physics," May 1, 2007] </ref>

==History==
String theory originated in 1970 when particle theorists realized that the theories developed in 1968 to describe the particle spectrum also describe the quantum mechanics of oscillating strings. Supersymmetry was introduced in 1971. The watershed year was 1984, when string theory became accepted by the mainstream physics community as an actual candidate theory that could unite quantum mechanics, particle physics, and gravity. Around 2000, many physics conceded that string theory was a failure, and that it had no hope of realizing any of its goals.

==Falsifiability==
There is much debate on whether string theory is truly scientific. Under the [[positivist]] philosophy, models must be falsifiable (i.e. it must be possible to define an experiment which could contradict the theory) for them to qualify as science, and then they must survive these tests. In more general terms, a model should be able to make predictions about the world we observe. String theory has yet to yield a particular definitive test, or to produce any models that resemble any known particles or forces.

The discovery of [[dark energy]] in 1998 was a particularly damaging blow to string theory. It was just the sort of thing that string theorists hoped to explain, and yet string theory cannot explain it. As of today, string theory has attracted strong interest among theorists but has not suggested any critical experiments.

Some string theorists, such as Leonard Susskind, say that string theory may not be testable but may still provide insights on multiple universes. His recent book is ''The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design''.

==Mathematical Predictions==
Although string theory has so far failed to make viable experimental predictions, it has proved remarkably successful at predicting new theorems in mathematics. For example, from string-theoretic considerations, Candelas, de la Ossa, Green, and Parks conjectured the correct formula for the number of degree d rational curves in a Calabi-Yau quintic. Their formula was later rigorously proved correct by Givental and Lian, Liu, and Yau, establishing that the string-theoretic prediction was accurate. More generally, string theory has predicted a deep relationship in mathematics called "mirror symmetry" which connects seemingly unrelated topics in symplectic and complex geometry. Mirror symmetry remains an active area of mathematical research, and many highly non-trivial examples of mirror symmetry have been mathematically verified.

==Further reading==
* Smolin, Lee. ''The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next '' (2007)[http://books.google.com/books?id=z5rxrnlcp3sC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=string+theory+smolin+%22brief+history%22&source=bl&ots=SQ9FOy7Xzc&sig=wdybggr1pcZ_OGGVzjQOb4S8R4E&hl=en&ei=HLkHSuX-ApPstgOw39zcAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1 part 2 online]
==External links==
* [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/ ''The Elegant Universe''] (Nova TV Series discussing Strings)
* [http://athome.harvard.edu/programs/sst/ "String Theory, Black Holes, and the Fundamental Laws of Nature" (Harvard@Home 2007)]
* [http://superstringtheory.com/ "The Official String Theory Web Site" by Patricia Schwarz (PhD Physics, Cal Tech)]
* [http://superstringtheory.com/people/index.html interviews with leaders in the field: John Schwarz; Sir Michael Atiyah; Ed Witten; Jim Gates; Eva Silverstein; Juan Maldacena; and Brian Greene]

==See also==
* [[Twistor String Theory]]

====references====
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:String theory

2009-06-16T16:47:17Z

Lemonpeel:

== String theory "unrelated" to known forces in nature? ==
In the article introduction, the claim is made that it has been proven that string theory is unrelated to any known forces in nature. This sounds manifestly untrue. For example, in bosonic string theory, a massless vector boson appears in a natural way. Those familiar with quantum field theory will recognize this particle as a photon, which mediates the electrodynamic force. So how about we amend that comment?--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:47, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== Falsifiability is from Pragmatism, not Positivism ==

Advocates of logical positivism such as Wittgenstein, Carnap, et. al. held that scientific propositions should be ''verifiable'', thus the name "positivism". The question became what, exactly, it meant for something to be verifiable, so the logical positivists developed a theory of logic & language to be put to use in the course of empirical investigations.

Karl Popper and W.V. Quine were the pragmatists who took issue with the positivist position of verifiability and required a ''falsifiability'' condition from empirical claims on the grounds that one could never actually verify a claim through empirical investigation, but one could most assuredly prove it wrong through experimentation.

Because of the strong mathematical content of String Theory, a positivist would be more likely to accept it as a scientific theory than a pragmatist.

: Your comments here make sense to me, and were consistent with my original entry until someone else changed it. How about fixing up the entry itself with your improvements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 25 February 2007 (EST)

== Completeness and Computability ==

This:

"However it is not yet demonstrated that the theory is insoluble (see the Incompleteness theorem): that is, while string theory is not yet provable, it has not been shown to be unprovable. As an analogy, it can be suggested that all objects become green when they are not being observed: this is a model which is unprovable in principle, and therefore unscientific."

Makes no sense whatsoever. This is confusing the mathematical notions of completeness and independence with the ability to disprove something through empirical means. One does not show by mathematical means that a potentially empirical claim is indeed falsifiable, that must be done by considering the claims of the theory and the manner in which they are phrased. If string theory were to predict certain particles in certain abundances, or something similar, then the theory would be falsifiable, in the same way that quantum field theory is rendered falsifiable by the Higgs mechanism. What's more, only the mathematics may be subjected to the incompleteness theorem. As all of physics relies on extremely rich mathematics that are, under Godel's theorem, incomplete while, at the same time, remaining falsifiable, it seems ridiculous to suggest that the completeness or incompleteness of the mathematics should have any bearing on the falsifiability of the claims in question.

: I agree. I also found senseless the reference to the incompleteness theorem. It almost looks like vandalism. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

What's more, it is extremely unlikely that incompleteness has any bearing on any physics anywhere in any way -- the ties between computability and completeness prevent this from happening. A physically realizable state is always computable, in any context. The system giving rise to that realization is doing the computation! Invoking Incompleteness here is pure hogwash.

: Right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

In the last sentence, we've gotten confused again. The first part of the article made appeal to falsifiability, and now in the last sentence we're requiring positive establishment. For consistency with the first part of the article, the author should have said "The claim that all objects become green when they are not observed is not falsifiable". (And I doubt that even this is true, since a lack of the required mechanism to render objects green falsifies the statement).

Finally, String Theory's central claims are put in a way that are falsifiable, as long as we have the ability to probe the energies and scales required. The fact that we don't have the technology does not have any bearing on the lingual structure of the claims.

: Well ... will there be any way to falsify it in the foreseeable future? If not, then it's not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

It is enough to note that, to date, no evidence has been found to support string theory. That's it.

: The criticism should be a bit stronger. There is "no evidence" found to support claims that Atlas isn't holding up the earth in a new dimension either. The stronger point that String theory isn't really science should be made.

: Also, please sign your discussion at some point, or else it becomes hard to see who said what. The signature box is the second from the right above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:: There ''will'' be a way (or ways) to falsify it in the future - if the particles predicted/required by the various string theories don't actually show up when we have particle accelerators big enough to generate the energies required for those particles to form. Yes it is not testable now but should be in the future. I don't see why we should disregard something purely because right now we don't have the technology to test it. Are we luddites or can we accept the ''possible'' validity of a theory which ''does'' seem to imply a huge amount of underlying structure in the way the universe is made. I am not saying that we should consider string theory as fact, but do not discount the possibility of it being validated in the future.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:MarkGall

2009-06-16T16:36:51Z

Lemonpeel:

{{welcome|sig=[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:50, 10 June 2009 (EDT)}}

Hello there, Mark! I am truly glad to see that you are adding new pages for Obama's "Czars." So far, so good for a newcomer to Conservapedia!
-[[User:RKLuffy88|RKLuffy88]]

== Czars... ==

Great work, Mark, but can we please consolidate these into one Obama Czar article? --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:10, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

== String Theory ==

Thanks for adding the attributions to Givental, Lian, Liu, and Yau. Don't ask me why I left out such an important credit.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:36, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

String theory

2009-06-16T13:15:38Z

Lemonpeel: added brief description of mathematical predictions from string theory

'''String theory''', (or super-string theory when coupled with [[Supersymmetry]]), is a class of models in [[theoretical physics]] which replace zero-dimensional points (particles) in four-dimensional spacetime with one-dimensional strings in an eleven-dimensional spacetime as the fundamental building block of the universe. The elusive goal is to develop a set of equations that unify all known natural forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak, and strong), according to some preconceived philosophical beliefs about how they ought to be unified. Leading proponents of string theory have been Edward Witten of the [[Institute for Advanced Study]] and [[Brian Greene]], the renowned author of ''The Elegant Universe''.

String theory (and its alter ego M-theory) is currently the most viable candidate for a unified theory of physics which describes all forces of nature, encompassing the physics of gravity as well as quantum field theory. Major research centers include, for example, MIT, with five faculty members and numerous postdocs and graduate students working in this area.<ref> see [http://ctp.lns.mit.edu/research-strings.html MIT Center for Theoretical Physics]</ref>

Princeton University researchers have found new mathematical evidence that some of string theory's predictions mesh closely with those of a well-respected body of physics called "gauge theory," which has been demonstrated to underlie the interactions among quarks and gluons, the vanishingly small objects that combine to form protons, neutrons and other, more exotic subatomic particles. The discovery, say the physicists, could open up a host of uses for string theory in attacking practical physics problems.<ref>See [http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S17/80/32S21/index.xml?section=newsreleases "Princeton physicists connect string theory with established physics," May 1, 2007] </ref>
==History==
String theory originated in 1970 when particle theorists realized that the theories developed in 1968 to describe the particle spectrum also describe the quantum mechanics of oscillating strings. Supersymmetry was introduced in 1971. The watershed year was 1984, when string theory became accepted by the mainstream physics community as an actual candidate theory that could unite quantum mechanics, particle physics and gravity.

==Falsifiability==
There is much debate on whether string theory is truly scientific. Under the [[positivist]] philosophy, models must be falsifiable (i.e. it must be possible to define an experiment which could contradict the theory) for them to qualify as science, and then they must survive these tests. In more general terms, a model should be able to make predictions about the world we observe. String theory has yet to yield a particular definitive test, or to produce any models that resemble any known particles or forces.

The discovery of [[dark energy]] in 1998 was a particularly damaging blow to string theory. It was just the sort of thing that string theorists hoped to explain, and yet string theory cannot explain it. As of today, string theory has attracted strong intetrest among theorists but has not suggested any critical experiments.

Some string theorists, such as Leonard Susskind, say that string theory may not be testable but may still provide insights on multiple universes. His recent book is ''The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design''.

==Mathematical Predictions==
Although string theory has so far failed to make viable experimental predictions, it has proved remarkably successful at predicting new theorems in mathematics. For example, from string-theoretic considerations, Candelas, de la Ossa, Green, and Parks conjectured the correct formula for the number of degree d rational curves in a Calabi-Yau quintic. More generally, string theory has predicted a deep relationship in mathematics called "mirror symmetry" which connects seemingly unrelated topics in symplectic and complex geometry. Mirror symmetry remains an active area of mathematical research, and many highly non-trivial examples of mirror symmetry have been mathematically verified.

==Further reading==
* Smolin, Lee. ''The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next '' (2007)[http://books.google.com/books?id=z5rxrnlcp3sC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=string+theory+smolin+%22brief+history%22&source=bl&ots=SQ9FOy7Xzc&sig=wdybggr1pcZ_OGGVzjQOb4S8R4E&hl=en&ei=HLkHSuX-ApPstgOw39zcAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1 part 2 online]
==External links==
* [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/ ''The Elegant Universe''] (Nova TV Series discussing Strings)
* [http://athome.harvard.edu/programs/sst/ "String Theory, Black Holes, and the Fundamental Laws of Nature" (Harvard@Home 2007)]
* [http://superstringtheory.com/ "The Official String Theory Web Site" by Patricia Schwarz (PhD Physics, Cal Tech)]
* [http://superstringtheory.com/people/index.html interviews with leaders in the field: John Schwarz; Sir Michael Atiyah; Ed Witten; Jim Gates; Eva Silverstein; Juan Maldacena; and Brian Greene]

==See also==
* [[Twistor String Theory]]

====references====
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:Brian Greene

2009-06-16T05:15:29Z

Lemonpeel: Created page with '== Supersymmetry reference removed == Originally the article claimed that the Calabi-Yau condition on the extra dimensions in string theory gave rise to supersymmetry. This claim...'

== Supersymmetry reference removed ==
Originally the article claimed that the Calabi-Yau condition on the extra dimensions in string theory gave rise to supersymmetry. This claim is in error. Supersymmetric field theories can be defined with or without the Calabi-Yau condition on the extra dimensions. The Calabi-Yau condition is necessary to preserve a different type of symmetry called "conformal invariance".

Incidentally, I am highly skeptical of the article's implication that Greene's main contribution to string theory was to impose the Calabi-Yau condition. My impression is that he's famous for demonstrating an equivalence between two different types of string theory (Type IIA and IIB) when the "extra dimensions" form the shape of a Calabi-Yau quintic. --[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 01:15, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Brian Greene

2009-06-16T05:04:37Z

Lemonpeel:

Brian Greene, author of ''The Elegant Universe'' and professor at Columbia University since 1996, is one of the most famous proponents of [[string theory]].

Greene's most significant contribution to string theory is his application of [[Calabi-Yau]] manifolds to string theory's extra dimensions. According to Greene, these manifolds describe the shape of the extra dimensions.

When string theory's extra dimensions take on the form of Calabi-Yau manifolds, the theory retains an important symmetry called "conformal invariance".

[[Category:Physicists]]

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-06-16T01:54:57Z

Lemonpeel: /* "Beautiful, but not robust" Quote */

== Mass section revision ==
Regarding my earlier revision of the "mass increase" section: I was careful not to change anything in that section without first asking permission. I explained on the talk page the reason for wanting to make the change, and more or less what I thought should be said. A user named "RSchafly" gave me the go-ahead to make the change, which I did. And I didn't do it in secret. I announced the change as soon as I made it, over a month ago.

Now you've decided you don't like it, and instead of asking me to fix it, or even saying simply "thanks, but no thanks", you dismiss the whole thing as "claptrap". Excuse me, but that is incredibly rude.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 21:51, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

== "Beautiful, but not robust" Quote ==

The beginning of this article provides a quote from Steven Weinberg on quantum field theory saying that QFT is "beautiful, but not robust." The way the quote is given here makes it sound like this comment was intended as a criticism of QFT. I looked up the source of the quote, and it appears (to me at least) that the quote was not meant as a criticism at all. I think what Weinberg was saying is that QFT has to satisfy a lot of strong properties, such as gauge invariance and renormalizeablility. It is in that sense that QFT is not robust. But the point I think Weinberg is making is that this gives us hope for finding a grand unified theory, since we don't have much wiggle room in the kinds of theories we can propose.

Given that, I propose the quote be removed, since its likely meaning is out of context with the way the quote is being used. --[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:00, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

:The quote speaks for itself, and your comment is unfortunately incoherent. A lack of robustness in a theory is obviously a weakness in the theory, not in the requirements for the theory. No, we're not going to censor the quote.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:51, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Well, clearly the quote does not speak for itself, since it comes at the end of a long lecture praising the progress that has been made in QFT. As far as lack of robustness being a weakness--it seems like this is the exact opposite point Weinberg is trying to make. He discusses, for example, how pleased he was when people discovered the need for theories to be renormalizeable. His point was that this was a hard condition for a theory to satisfy, and therefore imposing that condition greatly narrowed the search for the correct theory. I hope that clarifies the point I was trying to make. --[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 21:19, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

:"Lemonpeel", your statement is again incoherent. You state, "clearly the quote does not speak for itself, '''since it comes at the end of a long lecture praising the progress that has been made in QFT'''." The same could be said about some of our close-minded liberal editors. When one starts from zero, one can make infinite "progress" and still be virtually at zero.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:27, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Can't argue with that logic.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 21:54, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

== Mass Increase Section ==

In the subsection on mass increase, it is claimed that the abandonment of the relativistic mass point of view "undermines" the famous equation <math>E=mc^2</math>. I find this statement rather odd. After all, the broader principle underlying this equation is that if <math>p</math> is the 4-momentum vector of a particle, then the magnitude of <math>p</math> is the same in all inertial reference frames and equal (in units where c = 1) to the rest mass of the particle. This remains true regardless of whether one uses the language of relativistic mass or not. As currently written, this subsection is liable to confuse anyone who is unfamiliar with the subject.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 20:41, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

: Go ahead and fix it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:27, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

:Done.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 13:37, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

== Great article ==

1) Superb avoidance of difficult science in a scientific article. Best not to be confusing.
2) Nice attention on Eddington rather than the theory itself.
3) Good mind reading regarding Eddington's dreams.
4) Nice work ignoring the facts about things that have been inventing using GR such as GPS

And rather than simply be sarcastic, I will work on a better article over the weekend. One that actually discusses the science.

== Special and general relativity ==

This article seems to combine the two. They are different ideas and need to be distinguished. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:21, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Agreed. Separate articles would make more sense. I don't have time to do the necessary work right now, but if no one else does it I'm sure I'll get to it eventually. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:11, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:If someone will split the pages, I'll help flesh them out.--[[User:ZLewis|ZLewis]] 10:42, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Moral Relativism line needs to go. ==

I have never heard anyone advocating moral relativism use either of the theories of relativity to do it. Actually, the only people who I've ever heard that from are relativity deniers like Fred Hutchison. Not only does that show a grave misunderstanding of the scientific theory, but also a misunderstanding of the phrase "moral relativism". In any case, you can't draw moral implications from scientific theories. When someone says that Einstein's theory of relativity implies some kind of moral relativism, they're really saying "The geometric theory of gravity allows me to internalize my moral decisions".

That line is ridiculous and irrelevant, and needs to disappear.

:I don't like it ''at all'' in its present form, but the word "relativity" is thrown around casually ''quite a lot'' and there might be justification for a section with a title like "what relativity is not."

:E.g. [http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/06/relativity.html Scott Adams], author of the Dilbert comic strip, says "Einstein’s great insight was assuming reality was not fixed, and that everything was relative to the observer" and goes on to say "I have extended that thinking to people..."

::I think using Scott Adams as a reference or a jumping-off point for discussion really constitutes holding one's self to a dismally low standard. He's posted his own theories of physics to his blog a few times, freely admitting that he knows they're wrong and that he just takes pride in the fact that the layman can't successfully challenge them. In all honesty, moral relativism is a perfectly valid subject for an article, but it doesn't have anything to do with physics other than an unfortunate overlap of words and definitions in English. Putting this section in just makes the authors look like they're bristling for a fight. [[User:Willforpresident|Willforpresident]] 21:25, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:What follows is interesting if not very profound, but dragging Einstein into it is not helpful.

:It just goes to show the value of jargon. When scientists give something a simple name like "relativity," people assume they understand it and misapply it. I'm just thankful that people aren't very familiar with mathematics or we'd be hearding about crop circles in Galois fields. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:50, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::I like the "what relativity is not" idea. Might be worth pointing out that relativity in physics didn't start with SR; there is such a thing as Galilean relativity, after all. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:57, 25 February 2007 (EST)

This line must go. It is not relevant to the article. Have a disambiguation page for relativity. The citation is completely incorrect. The website http://www.moralrelativity.com/about1.html says nothing about general relativity influencing moral relativity. This article says 'Relativity has generated a huge following by advocates of moral relativism,' but the website http://www.moralrelativity.com/about1.html does not make any mention of this statement, therefore it is improperly cited. Citations are supposed to support claims, and this one does not. (Read the website for yourself). Also, just because relativity is a homophone in this case doesn't mean it belongs in an article of the (general) theory of relativity. ''Please make a disambiguation page'' because this is clearly in the wrong place.

I removed the moral relativity part from this article and placed it in a new article called [[Moral relativity]]. Relativity here is clearly just a homophone, and moral relativity is irrelevant to special or general relativity. To illustrate my point, see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativity. Relativity in physics has a special meaning. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 00:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, moral relativism is a big reason for the political support of types of relativity. It's obviously relevant to this article, and the above criticism only reinforces the need to include a reference. We can debate how to say it, but censorship is not an option here. Go to Wikipedia for that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, then that can go into the [[Moral relativity]] article, which now exists. There is no support for your claim. Neither is there a need for political support for a scientific theory. The way you describe it, moral relativity references this theory of relativity, not the other way around. The theory of relativity neither relies on moral relativity in any explanation of it or needs it to be mentioned for a complete treatment of the theory, and therefore it is inappropriate to add it here. I direct you again to the dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativity in order to clarify that relativity in this sense has specific meaning in the domain of physics, and arbritrary theories that share the word are not in this domain nor are related in any concrete way, simply being homophones. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 18:40, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Someone added more about the moral relativity bit, so I put it in the right place: in the article on [[Moral relativity]]. The section says, "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views," which is about moral relavitity and how they use the theory of relativity, not how the the theory of relativity involves moral relativity. I challenge the writer again to find a work on the physics theory that metions moral relativity at all. Just because a page mentions the theory of relativity does not make it a legitimate part of the theory itself, and as such, does not belong in this article. If anything, the [[Moral relativity]] article should make a link to this article, not the other way around. I am not sure the agenda here, but it seems that someone would like to promote moral relativity by attaching it to unrelated articles. Please add your information to the correct article in the correct place. Again, here is the link: [[Moral relativity]]. Go crazy. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

ASchlafly, you added the line "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views" and gave a citation afterwards. If you read the page that you cite, you will see that the author merely uses Special Relativity to demonstrate how moral relativism works. He does not "seize" on the theory and does not use it to "legitimize" his view. Can you find a better source please? (or remove the sentence)

: I can't tell who or when this comment was made, because it lacks the signature (use the signature button above). But I will look for more sites about to support my statement, which should be easy to find. Frankly, I've never heard anyone doubt the statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps you've been listening the wrong people. No reputable explanations of relativity mention moral relativity. Find a reputable one. Don't look for moral relativity explanations that include physics relativity, because that information belongs in [[Moral relativity]], not here. You are researching the wrong topic. Repeat: look for information about the physical theory of relativity and see if you can find one that mentions moral relativity (not pages that talk about moral relativity and mention physical relativity). Furthermore, anyone can set up a web page and say whatever they want, so web pages are generally not a very good resource (unless it's the physics department website at MIT, for instance, because it has credibility in this field). You should find reputable scientific texts. And, please, stick the topic at hand: physical science topics needs physical science resources. There is ample room in the [[Moral relativity]] article to discuss. In fact, I'm surprised you aren't contributing more to that article (especially compared to how much you try add to in this article), since you seem to be very interested in the topic and are more knowledgable about it than physical relativity. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I've received no response. Can I remove the paragraph now? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 16:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::By the way, I checked the history, and MatteeNeutra made the uncited statement above about needing a better source or removing the sentence. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 17:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== <math>e=mc^2</math> not "attributed" to Einstein. ==

<math>e=mc^2</math> isn't just "attributed" to Einstein. When someone says "attributed", they typically mean that someone is given credit for an idea somewhat apocryphally. Einstein obtained the relation in his Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper, in which, from the Lorentz transformations, he obtained the relations:

<math>E = \sqrt{c^4m^2+p^2c^2}</math>
and then, as <math>p\to0</math>:

<math>E=mc^2</math>.

And these bizarre polemics are undermining what little credibility this encyclopedia has. Sneering at Einstein and glorifying the contributions of Ponicare makes all of the sense of arguing over whether Leibniz or Newton invented calculus, particularly since there are very palpable differences between Einstein and Ponicare's treatments of the subjects. And, I see someone has removed the "there is no evidence for the general theory", but I'm sure it will be back by this afternoon. That's ever weirder -- how on earth can someone say that "there is no evidence" and then, in the same article, link to black holes?

I'm not going to go back to that article on [[Dirac Notation]] to fill up all of those links with articles until I'm sure one of the administrators isn't going to replace them with accusations of quantum mechanics being tantamount to the Kabbalah, or something equally stupid. (unsigned)

: It is a fact that Poincare published E=mc2 and most of the rest of special relativity before Einstein. Maybe you think that this is sneering or glorifying, but it is a fact, and there is no serious dispute about it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:17, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: This is true, but what Poincare described was a specific case of E=mc2. An experimental result showed that there was momentum when a body ejected EM radiation, but the mass was unaccounted for. Poincare described the mass of the EM as m=E/c2. Einstein derived this formula from more fundamental assumptions, the speed of light is absolute, etc. This is why his work is so famous. In fact, in all of science, nothing belongs to any one person, even though they may get credit, but are supposedly discovered. Also do not forget that Einstein also published General Relativity.
::Furthermore, while Poincare regarded it as superfluous, scientists of the day were still trying to work with the luminescent ether. Einstein's work proved this unnecessary.
::Again this is a lesson in science. We are always trying to compress and refine our science. Einstein, while he of course drew on other's work and surely knew of Poincare's m=E/c2 paper, his work was more refined and simpler, deriving many principles, Poincare's and new ones, from a few fundamental principles. Poincare published a paper about a month before Einstein with similar work, but in science, no one person makes a discover. Don't forget, Newton has his Hooke. But like Newton, it was Einstein's derivation and formalizations that worked better. (unsigned)

::: Yes, Poincare described was a specific case of E=mc2, but so did Einstein. Einstein did not foresee particle annihilation or nuclear energy. Poincare's description of the ether as superfluous is nearly identical to Einstein's.
::: How was Einstein's work on special relativity any more refined, simpler, or better working? I deny this. Poincare showed a better understanding of the theory than Einstein. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Don't ask me, ask Lorentz. http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm

::::: OK, I looked at your link. The first thing I saw was a claim that the 1919 eclipse proved the General Relativity. We now know that eclipse proved no such thing. So much for the credibility of that link.

::::: The link does show that Lorentz and Einstein were patting each other on the back. That's fine, but it suggests a lack of objectivity towards the odd man out, Poincare. This dispute cannot be resolved by self-interested party, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Can't get much more credible than a publication by Lorentz on Gutenberg, bud. It may be dated, but it is closer to the date of Einstein's work. As far as I see you, you have the burden to prove your claim as much as everyone else has to support the opposite claim. Where is your evidence of credible sources? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 18:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Old version ==

I was just looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_Relativity&oldid=15341 an old version of this page], and the absurdity of the "scientific" claims made, combined with the low quality of the writing and blatant inaccuracies, make the article, quite frankly, almost intellectually offensive. I realize that this has since been rectified, but if this is the quality that is to be expected of Conservapedia articles, then I do not blame those who dismiss it as a failed attempt. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:12, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: be specific in your statements if you expect a response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I find the content reverted to in the above edit to be quite disturbing.

* The General Theory of Relativity does ''not'' reject Isaac Newton's "God-given" theory of gravitation, it simply provides an explanation for ''why'' it functions.

: that was obviously vandalism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* It is most certainly ''not'' a problem that the General Theory of Relativity is based upon mathematics as opposed to empirical evidence, as seems to be insinuated by this version.

: mathematics is mathematics, and unless there is empirical evidence it is not science.

::Mathematics describes physics. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* Albert Einstein's work ''did'' contribute to the development of the nuclear bomb. ''E=mc2'' describes the duality between matter and energy, the principle upon which the nuclear bomb, and all other nuclear devices, functions.

: nope. ''E=mc2'' is a statement of relativistic effect, not atomic power.

::Yes, but the mass lost in the nuclear reaction is converted to energy, which is the fundamental power of the weapon. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* "Nothing useful has even been built based on the theory of relativity." Sure, sure… nuclear power plants aren't useful at ''all'', are they? GPSs aren't useful ''at all'', are they?

: GPSs are useful, but they weren't built using General Relativity.
:: Without realativity describing gravitation redshift, the timing for the GPS satelite would be off by about 45 microseconds/day. Further reading on the matter at http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:08, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: I think Lorenzian relativity accounts for the GPS time dilation more precisely. But that isn't really my point. The GPS clocks are updated based on communications between the satellites and ground stations, not based on any theory. If you claim that GPS is built based on relativity, then you should be able to prove your case with an historical reference. No such proof exists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: That observation does not support the false claim that GPS is based on General Relativity. Other theories predict a dilation of time, and satellites are obviously synchronized based on communication, not theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::No, they have GR corrections built in. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::Can you please cite an alternate theory that accounts for the time dilation experiecned by the GPS satelites along with the math that matches that of relativity? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:17, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* "Most conservatives are skeptical since science is supposed to be about finding proof before a theory becomes a fact, not after." And ''where'' are the statistics that show this?

: Don't know who wrote that statement, but it's a correct statement of what science means.

::I was refering to the claim that "''most'' conservatives are skeptical since science…" (emphasis added) [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* Gravitons are not predicted by general relativity; much to the contrary, the two have not been reconciled.

* It is currently believed that space does indeed have curvature, what is described as "negative" curvature, giving it a saddle-like shape overall, but curvature nonetheless.

The denial of demonstrated principles because they do not coincide with your worldview is not scientific, it's purely reactionary nonsense. I'm not impressed by Examples of Bias in Wikipedia citing Wikipedians taking issue with this as a "bias". [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 16:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: OK, fine, no one is trying to impress you. The Wikipedia entry was biased and demonstrably false, as explained in [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Oh, and I mean no offense to Aschlafly. Although I do not necessarily agree with all his views, I do not wish to disparage him, and I recognize his value as a contributor. I've reconciled with him on this issue, and want to make clear that I do not mean this comment as an attack. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: I just realized that I had somehow managed to fail to see that Aschlafly's edit was a simple revert to a previous version. I don't necessarily agree with the decision, and I don't retract the points with which I take issue, but Aschlafly is not responsible for the content, and I'm sorry for insinuating that he was. I've changed some of my comment to reflect the fact that the edit was simply a revert. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Merge with draft==

There is a draft for this article [[Theory of relativity/draft | here]]. Surely it's about time these two were merged together or at the very least decide which one is to be continued. I will continue to work on Theory of Relativity/draft as I feel it is a much clearer article. What does everyone else think? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 07:33, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: Your draft article has some great stuff in it. Would you like to merge it into the main article now? However, please do not delete anything from the main article as part of the merge. Thanks and a good Easter to you.

: By the way, it appears that relativity is taught in college without using the concept of relativistic mass. But let's go with your relativistic mass as you wrote it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, I'll take a shot at a merge now. Relativistic mass is quite important to the theory, as from it we can determine that matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== This isn't Wikipedia ==

Teji, don't delete facts here that liberals don't like. This isn't Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Please read my explanation above. I don't think anyone likes unsourced information that is in the wrong topic. Please contribute to [[Moral relativity]]. I had to create that page while someone was adding information about it to the this topic. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Furthermore, that link is about moral relativity, not special relativity. It belongs in [[Moral relativity]]. It is shocking that someone so interested in that topic didn't even think to make the article. In fact, I started that article! [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:12, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here is what I said above in case you didn't catch it: ''No reputable explanations of relativity mention moral relativity. Find a reputable one. Don't look for moral relativity explanations that include physics relativity, because that information belongs in Moral relativity, not here. You are researching the wrong topic. Repeat: look for information about the physical theory of relativity and see if you can find one that mentions moral relativity (not pages that talk about moral relativity and mention physical relativity). Furthermore, anyone can set up a web page and say whatever they want, so web pages are generally not a very good resource (unless it's the physics department website at MIT, for instance, because it has credibility in this field). You should find reputable scientific texts. And, please, stick the topic at hand: physical science topics needs physical science resources. There is ample room in the Moral relativity article to discuss. In fact, I'm surprised you aren't contributing more to that article (especially compared to how much you try add to in this article), since you seem to be very interested in the topic and are more knowledgable about it than physical relativity. Teji 13:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)''

:I find it interesting that when you cannot support your information you resort to name-calling and statements about wikipedia. Does this site want credible and accurate information or information with an agenda? Because if it is the latter, please make a statement to that effect in your policy pages, or would that make this website too credible and accurate? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Teji, the statement does not claim that the theory of relativity supports moral relativity, but merely that supporters of moral relativity seized upon the theory of relativity to justify their views. "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views.[3] Historians such as Paul Johnson wrote about how the theory of relativity caused a sea change, justified or not, in 20th century thought." That statement is correct and should not be deleted. Read it, and reread it, and only comment further here if you can provide something that specifically refutes that statement. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:It is in the wrong place. The statement is clearly about [[Moral relativity]]. This statement is also correct: ''Jesus is God'', does it belong in this article? No. Here is another correct statement: ''morality is "what is the good" and ethics is "how do I practice it"'' from the moral relativity site. Does it belong in this artcle? Certainly not. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Correctness is not enough. There also must be accuracy. Information about [[Moral relativity]] belongs in that article. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Maybe you should change the title to just "Relativity". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, how do I do that? We could also make a disambiguation page, but I don't know how to do that either. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::RSchlafly, you've missed the point. This article is about the Theory of Relativity as a scientific theory. As such, the article should not talk about Moral relativity which, apart from sharing using the same word, is absolutely nothing at all to do with the Theory of Relativity. I also, do not think that the sentence about Moral relativity should be put on this article. At the very most a link at the bottom of this article to Moral relativity, but you may as well link it to a page on forestry for all the relevance it has. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 05:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Exactly, if you want to speak about moral relativists using special or general relativity as validation for their philosophy then it should be placed in an articlea bout moral relativism. It should '''not''' be here. Perhaps - perhaps - it could go in a section on the influence of the theory of relativity on 20th century culture.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why was quote about Dicke removed? ==

I added this quote about the Francis Dicke's theory. Aschalfy, why did you remove it without any comments? It is from the same time magazine article that is already cited in this article. It clarifies why Dicke's theory is less professionally accepted! Please read the article yourself. It shows that Einstein's theory was closer than Dicke's.

''But the J.P.L. experimenters reduced the margin of error to 4% or less by locating the distant spacecraft within 100 ft. of their actual position. Thus, when they calculated that the signal to Mariner was slowed down by 204 millionths of a second on its round trip, '''they dealt the Brans-Dicke theory a sharp if not decisive blow'''. Their measurement was only 4 millionths of a second off the Einsteinian prediction, but 18 millionths of a second off the Brans-Dicke figure.'' http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html

This is the same article that that is cited for the statement ''Physicist Robert Dicke of Princeton University was a prominent critic[7]''. The same article that shows why Robert Dicke's theory is not accepted among scientists. Dicke suffered not just because he criticized Einstein's theory, but also because his theory was not as accurate. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Time magazine is not an authority on whether Dicke's theory is better than Einstein's. Our [[rules]] are very clear not to cite journalists as authorities beyond their expertise. A scientific citation that I added shows that Dicke's theory is held in high regard to this day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The JPL isn't?

::: You've got to do better than that if you want a response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: And a link from the JPL http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/70s/release_1970_0566.html --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That's an old self-serving press release about only one study. My footnote about relativity, citing a renaissance in Dicke's theory, is more recent and more comprehensive, and is based on a astrophysics encyclopedia. So your cite is not appropriate.

:::: And another article http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/9404/dicke.html about Dicke's critique of relativity and where it failed to produce a better answer. Tests included sodium lines in the sun, distance to the moon, and precession of Mercury. I do not believe that it is fair to say that the ''theory'' is held in high regard today. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll take a look at this. I must say, however, that any article that starts out by calling its opponent a "crank" lacks credibility. But this cite is worth including to reflect the political bias against Dicke, resulting in his being denied the Nobel Prize.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::It actually specifically says that Dicke was not a "crank." [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Ah, yes. The author charitably concedes that Dicke himself was not a crank, just anyone who supported Dicke's view was.

::::: This article, which I'm reading now, is incredibly biased and one-sided. It declares the "General Theory" to be possibly the "greatest single achievement in physics ... of all time." And the author states his extremely biased view before telling us about testing results. Too bad this conflicts with the encyclopedia I cite in the content page. The value of this article is to show how intolerant supporters of the "General Theory" are of any criticism, including that by Dicke.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: If Dicke's results were as good or better than General Relativity, then there would be no issue at all. It also addresses reference #8 about not getting a Nobel Prize - that is because the prize is for discovery, not interpretations. He wasn't a theoretician and thus didn't have other theories and discoveries. The individual Dicke is held with high regard in the community - his theory is not (though it is respected in developing the framework for relativistic events). I am curious to see a citation that shows his theory as being respected for the results it gives. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::: Also the article you misuse by taking the whole renaissance statement out of says this in the same paragraph before your quote!
::::::::''Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time.''
::::::: [[User:Teji|Teji]] 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Muon experiment from another point of view ==

From the point of view of the muon in the experiment mentioned, time is not slowed down, but rather distance is compressed. So instead of dilating time 5x across 10km of travel at relativistic speed, the muon saw that space had compressed from 10km to 2km (also 5x) and it was still traveling that distance. Thus, the same result - just different perspectives. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:50, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ref: Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was never given a Nobel Prize. ==

I would like to remove this reference. Nobel Prizes are given for discoveries and advancements. Dicke was an experimentalist - not a theorist. He didn't make discoveries or advancements but rather proved or disproved what the theorists came up with. As such, the work he did was not something that was noted by those nominating for the Nobel Prize. Likewise, you won't see a book critic get a Nobel Prize for literature, no matter how good of a critic he or she may be. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:02, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: Given that there has been no comment on this in opposition, I am removing the reference until someone can dispute the question of if any of Dicke's work was the type for which a Nobel Prize would have been given. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:46, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: I'm reverting your change. Experimentalists win the Nobel Prize all the time. A prize was given to someone else for work Dicke was doing. In fact, experimentalists probably win the prize more than theorists. The deletion of that sentence is for liberal purposes, and we don't allow that here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Government support of relativity research problems ==

The section on government support of relativity research needs a big re-write, but it needs to be clear what is intended first. There are several specific complaints which seem to have been jumbled together:
#LIGO was a failure, and the money could have been spent elsewhere.
#Too much money is spent on string theory and similar theories.
#The government does not support research into (unspecified) alternate theories.

#This is just liberal crybabying. Not all experiments work, and you can't know ahead of time which ones will. Most such complaints about too much money being spent on some experimental program are based on the idea of government as sugar-daddy, and whining when sugar-daddy likes someone else best.
#This complaint is more legitimate, as there are serious claims that string theory is not a scientific theory. However, this complaint doesn't belong in this article, because string theory is not relativity; it's an attempt to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics. String theory would replace general relativity, if a coherent theory were formulated, and then tested.
#This complaint seems ridiculous, as the government has funded plenty of tests to verify general relativity; any experimenter who wants to test an alternate theory can devise a test which would produce one result if GR is correct, and another if the alternate theory is true, and ask for funding for a test to verify GR.

On the other hand, perhaps the section could be deleted altogether. [[User:Ultramontanist|Ultramontanist]] 02:02, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== Relativistic mass ==
This paragraph is nonsense:
: 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. But mass is not a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is unacceptable.

The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is. Some don't like the term "relatvistic mass", but for other reasons.

This is also nonsense:
:In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
::1. It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.
:: 2. The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
:: 3. The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

This is not a restatement. Relativity says masses cannot for faster than light. Probably not information either, but that is another principle. Parts 2 and 3 are confusing and misleading, at best. Relativity teaches that there are no inertial frames in the universe. The laws of physics apply throughout the universe. They apply whether there is acceleration or not. But special relativity has more to do with inertial frames.

I suggest getting rid of these "layman's terms". They aren't. They don't clarify anything for anybody. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:29, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== GPS edit ==

Bayes, your claim that GPS is based on the Theory of General Relativity is not correct. GPS synchronization can be done directly, and has never relied on the theory. Your edits should be reverted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:My apologies. I didn't mean to edit recklessly; I thought I was correcting a typo. In fact, the [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html source cited by that sentence] ''before'' I made my edit (and many other sources as well) indicate that relativistic corrections are, in fact, taken into account by GPS receivers. Clocks on the satellites run at different rates than those on the ground due to the fact that they are at a higher altitude, where gravity is weaker; hence the need for a correction for gravitational time dilation, as predicted by general relativity. Yes, that means that clocks in Denver tick slightly faster than clocks in New York. I would be happy to look at any sources you can provide that show how GPS keeps accurate time without those corrections.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:30, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Your citation is to a silly, unsupported and off-hand remark by a professor of astronomy. GPS was built by engineers in the 1970s, who would not have even attempted to calculated the time dilation using relativity. There would be no reason to rely on relativity, since the clocks can be and were synchronized more directly, more simply and more accurately by communicating with them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:09, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::1. Let me reiterate that the citation was there before I made my edit. The previous version denied that relativistic corrections are necessary, and then cited a source to the contrary. Your recent edit makes a similar claim, but cites a source that doesn't delve deeply into technical aspects of how GPS actually works, and is therefore irrelevant to the claim. 
:::2. You can dismiss the citation in question if you like, but it seems that the overwhelming majority of experts disagree; consider [http://www.aticourses.com/global_positioning_system.htm 1] [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp 2] [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf 3], which I doubt would be considered "silly, unsupported and off-hand remark[s]." 
:::3. GPS designers in the 1970s certainly knew about relativistic effects. Here's an exerpt from [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf 3]: 
:::[B]efore the first GPS satellite was launched in 1977, although it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require such a relativistic offset, there was uncertainty as to its magnitude, and even its sign. So correcting frequency synthesizers were built into the clocks, spanning a large enough range around the nominal 10.23 MHz clock frequency to encompass all possibilities. After the satellite's cesium atomic clock was turned on, it was operated for three weeks to measure its rate. The frequency shift measured during this initial period was found to be 4.425 parts per ten billion, agreeing with the relativistic calculation to better than 1%. 
:::4. Yes, communication with the satellites is possible. That doesn't change the fact that satellite clocks run at different rates than ground-based clocks, which would result in huge errors if the satellite clock frequencies weren't compensated for time dilation effects.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:17, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== Criticism of LIGO ==

The criticism of LIGO under the heading "Government funding..." should be viewed in context. The observatories are not yet operating at their maximum level of precision. The usual procedure when building large projects like this is to make sure they work at more imprecise levels, and then "tune" them closer and closer to their limits. It isn't surprising that LIGO has not yet detected gravitational waves, and the consensus is that such waves will be detected in the future. The [http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html cource cited] for that criticism even mentions that physicists are "confident" that LIGO will be successful. After all, the NSF doesn't shell out hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money on a coin flip; they were/are convinced that getting results is a slam dunk.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:48, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

: Hope springs eternal. I'm afraid you sound like an oil-well driller (wildcatter) who, after encountering one dry well after another in a region, says "just spend a little more money and drill again!"

: LIGO has been a disappointment so far, and there is no sign of success right around the corner. At some point accountability is in order, even if more money is to be spent searching gravity waves. Realize that this search has been ongoing for 100 years, without any detection. How many more years are necessary?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:12, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::While I fully agree that accountability for all major budget items is in order at some point, I don't think the oil-driller analogy is valid in this context. LIGO is still far from its designed sensitivity, as mentioned [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJM-4B5R97X-F&_user=1010281&_handle=V-WA-A-W-VB-MsSAYVA-UUW-U-AAVUWVWVAB-AABDYWBWAB-CEYDYDUEB-VB-U&_fmt=summary&_coverDate=01%2F21%2F2004&_rdoc=15&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%235314%232004%23994829998%23476198%21&_cdi=5314&view=c&_acct=C000050264&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1010281&md5=6a930932559a96137a8b6aafdb2d9372 here]. Plans are already underway to do go beyond merely detecting gravitational waves to doing astrophysics with them. Furthermore, detection of gravitational waves requires extreme sensitivity that can only be achieved with modern technology. Serious efforts to detect them didn't begin until the 1960s, when Joseph Weber built his bar detectors, and even then the scientific consensus was that his detectors weren't sensitive enough. Some scientific advances just have to wait for technology to allow their discovery. Tell you what, if LIGO is considered a failure in 10 years, I owe you a Coke.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:40, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::It's been nearly 2 years since your message above, and LIGO has been operational for nearly 7 years. Do you really insist on waiting a full 10 years (after spending a billion dollars) before allowing some accountability? LIGO soaked up a ton of research money that could have been spent on promising technology and potential cures.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

== Other issues ==
There are some other aspects of this article that I would like to consider adding to or changing.
*A fair amount of text is dedicated to Eddington's findings and not many other astronomical observations. Eddington published his results in 1919; obviously, since then, there have been many others who have improved on his observations.
*The "Ostensible Paradoxes" section should be heavily altered or removed; there aren't any paradoxes listed there. First, the SR postulates don't offer any opinion on whether physical constants have had the same value throughout the history of the universe; they state that all inertial observers get the same answer when they measure the speed of light. Second, there are several ways to measure wave velocity; some of the most common are [[group velocity]] and [[phase velocity]]. Both types of velocities can exceed the speed of light (''c'') without violating special relativity. However, the energy velocity and information velocity do not exceed ''c'', also in accordance with SR. There is nothing mysterious or sinister going on here; these concepts are addressed or at least mentioned in many undergraduate courses. Third, the universal constant ''c'' is the speed of light ''in vacuum''; the speed of light ''in materials'' is less than than ''c'' since the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of materials are different than those of vacuum. That means that matter can travel faster than light ''in a material'' without violating SR; try Googling [[Cerenkov radiation]].--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:28, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'm concerned about the use of some citations, which seem to be misrepresented in order to discredit relativity. For instance:
:*The Economist article cited does not attack relativity; it's a discussion of how GR is being tested to its limits, like any other theory. If any improved theory of gravity is found, GR is likely to be a useful subset of it, in the same way that Newtonian gravity is a useful subset of GR. And anyway, I thought non-scientific sources [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_relativity&diff=prev&oldid=95688 weren't supposed to used] in these situations.
:*The new cite for the statement ''There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views'' is an opinion piece about how moral relativists hijacked scientific relativity for their own purposes. The cite doesn't make that claim, and it doesn't show any data to support it. Frankly, I'd be very surprised if any such correlation existed. Even IF that kind of correlation existed, it doesn't belong in a scientific article.

:The overall tone of the article seems to try to convince the reader to be skeptical of relativity. It appears to me that such skepticism is ideologically motivated, e.g., ''Although the liberally biased Wikipedia contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries...'', ''The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project...'', ''There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views''. I don't fully understand the motivation, but it bears repeating that good science (of which relativity is a part) is independent of ideology.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:54, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:: You're not the first to deny a [[liberal bias]] in science. But surely you would agree that the following areas of science, and perhaps nearly of all science, are susceptible to political bias:

**[[global warming]]
**nuclear energy
**the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]
**claims of extraterritorial life
**demands for government funding of science

::--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I absolutely agree that deciding what science to fund, implementation of policies pertaining to scientific findings, or practical use of scientific results (like nuclear weapons), and perhaps some other issues not mentioned are or can be politicized. But I stand by my basic point: if you get a liberal to measure acceleration due to gravity on Earth's surface, and then get a conservative to do the same thing, they'll both get 9.8 m/s^2. Similarly, relativity has been around long enough, has useful applications, and is so successful in predicting experimental outcomes that it should not be subject to the same treatment as the more controversial topics you mention.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:24, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: You apparently don't concede the liberal bias in the majority of my examples above, such as global warming and SDI. When I worked as engineer at a research facility in the 1980s, we had an IBM scientist with impeccable credentials give a presentation claim that SDI was impossible, dangerous, and bad politics. It's silly to pretend that his claim of impossibility of SDI was unrelated to politics. Likewise, it's silly to pretend there is no political bias in global warming theories. But if we can't agree on that, then there is little point in discussing this further. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Did you read the first sentence of my post above? Global warming is an example of tough policy decisions that could be implemented based on scientific findings. Surely both conservatives and liberals agree with the basic finding that the earth is warming. Similarly, the political debate over SDI was about the USE of science and technology, not the FINDINGS of science and technology. Sure, scientists can have opinions about what to do with their findings, but presumably the experimental results are valid across political lines. In any case, this is an aside; my specific concerns with the article, as addressed on this page, still stand. I assume by your willingness to exit the conversation that you don't have any problems with me addressing them?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:48, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Your first sentence omitted any reference to global warming. Global warming is a liberal scientific theory about if and why the earth is warming. Yes, there are political biases in many scientific theories. If you can't accept that, then I urge you to become more open-minded first before trying to pretend that something is immune from politics.

:::: I have no objections to factual edits of this article that add information. I do object to pushing a liberal point of view by deleting factual information. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:02, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: Sounds good. However, the fact that GPS satellite clocks have built-in corrections for relativistic effects is something I inserted previously, and it was reverted. I hope you understand that I brought up these issues in an effort to accurately represent the science, and not because of some agenda. As I've said, I don't think special and general relativity are associated with political controversy.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 19:12, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Bayes, you continue to insist on a falsehood, and I attribute that to [[liberal]] distortions in what you've read elsewhere. Please recognize that politics does distort science. '''GPS satellite clocks were not built based on predictions made by the theory of relativity.'''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: See my post above, where I have cited several sources that assert the contrary. On the other hand, you have yet to provide any evidence of how GPS can work without taking such corrections into account. Your source for that claim does not address timing issues with regard to GPS. I have to say that I'm increasingly baffled by your continued denial of this verifiable fact. How would a vast liberal conspiracy gain from hiding how clocks work?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:00, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Bayes, you're talking to a former engineer. GPS was built by engineers, not by theoretical physicists. GPS never used the theory of relativity. If you continue to dispute that (likely due to [[liberal]] bias), then give me your very best cite for your claim that GPS used the theory of relativity and I'll look at it. Otherwise, drop it and move on to a different issue. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:41, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

GPS and relativity links:
* http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
* http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
* http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm (actual equations)
* http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
* http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~kpgokeef/pubs/ENGO625relativity.pdf (slides from an engineering lecture - see pages 23-30 for listing of relativistic effects GPS accounts for - note conclusions on page 31.)
--[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 21:53, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: No, you're not listening. Give me your best cite for the claim that GPS *uses* the theory of relativity. Pick out your best, that's all I'm going to waste time on, since the answer is obvious to any engineer: GPS never used the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:58, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:: In that case, I should probably reference http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf "GPS And Relativity: An Engineering Overview".
:: The first page introduction finishes with "In this paper, we compare the predictions of relativity to those of intuitive, classical, Newtonian physics; we show how large or small the differences are, and how and what applications those difference are large enough to make it necessary to correct the formulas of classical physics."
:: Lorentz Contraction is covered on page 2, Gravitational redshift on page 3, and the acceleration of the satellite on page 4.
::: "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 -4.45x10-10 (= -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."
:: Does that help answer the question? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 22:22, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::: The very first sentences of this paper prove my point (emphasis added):

:::: 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 - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: 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 remainder of the paper is theoretical speculation about how a future GPS system might use relativity. There is disagreement about how relativity might be used, as reflected by comments in the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:05, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: The remainder of the paper is about improvements to the GPS system. The paper was published in '97. In 2001, the system was updated. With Block II GPS satelites, OCS was rewritten so that it doesn't require constant updates from ground stations to reset the clocks http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/mail/igsreport/1994/msg00146.html (example of clock reset for relativity prior to 2001). Instead, now, accounting for relativity constantly the GPS satellites are able to offer much more accurate positioning (this was required, as mentioned by the paper I previously linked, the 6 meter accuracy - it is now required by the 2001 performance standard http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/2001SPSPerformanceStandardFINAL.pdf (page 20 of the document, section 3.4) . If you are willing to reset the clock periodically and accept errors between clock resets - then you can discount relativity. If you want high accuracy all the time, you must take relativity into account between synchronizations. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:58, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: The remainder of the paper is about '''proposed''' improvements to the GPS system. There is nothing indicating that those proposals were ever implemented. So that paper strikes out as support for the claim that GPS relies on relativity.

::::: Now you're pointing me to a new paper. I'll look at it in the morning but, as I said, pick your best one. If this paper strikes out also then I'm unlikely to keep looking at more and more papers to explain why each one fails to support the claim. Please provide your very best cite, as I requested before. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:07, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::How about [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf this one], written by [http://www.colorado.edu/physics/Web/directory/faculty/ashby_n.html Neil Ashby] for [http://www.physicstoday.org/ Physics Today], a major publication of the AIP. Again, I quote from a portion, although the entire paper is about the issue in question:

:::::"[B]efore the first GPS satellite was launched in 1977, although it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require such a relativistic offset, there was uncertainty as to its magnitude, and even its sign. So correcting frequency synthesizers were built into the clocks, spanning a large enough range around the nominal 10.23 MHz clock frequency to encompass all possibilities. After the satellite's cesium atomic clock was turned on, it was operated for three weeks to measure its rate. The frequency shift measured during this initial period was found to be 4.425 parts per ten billion, agreeing with the relativistic calculation to better than 1%."

::::You've now been presented with many sources from Rutm and I supporting GR implementation in GPS, and you have yet to produce one source that says that GPS works on only classical principles. Furthermore, I question your motivation in demanding one "best" source, since I anticipate that you will attempt to attack the "best source," perhaps by invoking "liberal bias" (as if it existed in this case--either the clocks run at different frequencies or they don't), ignoring the vast consensus, and proclaim "victory."--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 10:56, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, I think I now (finally!) understand what's going on. I think we have a misunderstanding here; we're talking about two different kinds of corrections. The paper supplied by Rutm (and quoted in the current article) is discussing relativistic corrections to the frequency of signals measured by the receivers. That paper is from the early 1990s, and at that time no relativistic corrections were performed for those signals (though corrections might be taken into account now). Throughout this discussion, I have been referring to the fact that clocks on GPS space vehicles have ALWAYS had built-in frequency offsets to account for the relativistic effects on moving clocks and clocks in gravitational potentials. It's a question of corrections made to the '''communications''' between GPS components and the '''on-board clocks''' of the satellites; the former are not as important, while the latter are very important. Any problems with inserting this nuance into the article?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 19:14, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Andy, that GPS quote is extremely misleading. It implies that the relativistic effects are too small to be significant. But the rest of the paragraph explains that relativistic corrections are necessary to meet the accuracy requirements of most users. The article is incorrect when it states, "Predictions of relativity have not historically been used to make the Global Positioning System (GPS) function properly." Relativity has in fact been used, and programmed into satellites and receivers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:48, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:That's simply not true. GPS adjustments have been based on observation, not theoretical prediction. Effects predicted by relativity are offsetting to each other and the experts could not even agree in which direction the small net effect would be.
:This is a matter of historical fact and it's astonishing that the demands to rewrite history about this are so persistent. The quote confirms the obvious: GPS adjustments are based on observation, not theoretical prediction.
:For those who claim to have such a thorough understanding of GPS here, how about answering the question below: does Newtonian mechanics predict any divergence in the clocks from the satellite compared to ground? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: No, the fact is that the GPS satellites have operated both with and without the relativistic corrections. The cited articles confirm that. You are completely wrong to say that relativistic corrections have not been used.
:: The relativistic corrections partially offset each other, but not entirely, and they are big enough to affect accuracy in a typical consumer GPS unit. It is also false to say that there is disagreement among physicists on the point.
:: If you were right, then find an article that supports what you say. That paragraph you quote ends with "large enough to make it necessary to correct the formulas of classical physics." Include that, and give the date on the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:09, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:The article first states the obvious: GPS is not designed using the theory of relativity. Then the article discusses an ongoing and unresolved dispute about exactly what the theory of relativity does predict for the numerous factors involved in the GPS system, and makes its own unverified claims. Relativity predicts time differences going in both directions, and there are issues about what the inertial frame should be. One article cited earlier, which I will try to find and reinsert, states that Lorentzian (not Special) Relativity generally matches observations best.

:GPS was built by engineers and there is no reason for them to rely on the theory of relativity. It is far simpler and more reliable simply to observe the time differences. Engineers don't study the theory of relativity, and if you think a physicist well-versed in the theory of relativity provided essential predictions for the GPS engineers, then who was he? Give us his name and he we can simply ask him. Was he nominated for a Nobel prize? Surely he would have at least published a paper about his work. Where is it????

:And where is the answer to the question as to whether Newtonian mechanics predicts time difference in the GPS system also? After all, if someone is going to claim that GPS confirms the superiority of relativity to Newtonian mechanics, then surely he must first make a statement about whether Newtonian mechanics predicts a time difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:56, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: What you say is just not true. GPS was designed with an understanding of the magnitude of the relativistic effects. The effects are well-understood, and no one was nominated for a Nobel prize for predicting the effects. Yes, there were engineers who didn't study relativity and didn't think that relativistic effects would be significant. They have been proven wrong. There are no unresolved disputes. You have been given several references that tell the story. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:41, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

::: To sum:

*** no physicists have been identified who supposedly incorporated relativity into the GPS design
*** no papers exist describing how relativity *was* (not "might be") used in GPS
*** references that have been provided describe disagreements among physicists about the relativistic predictions for GPS
*** those claiming that GPS confirms relativity compared to Newtonian mechanics don't know whether Newtonian mechanics also predicts time differences, which renders the comparison pointless.

::: I realize that historical revisionism is common in many areas, but I would hope that science would adhere to a higher standard. Sometimes, unfortunately, science seems be even more vulnerable to revisionism. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:04, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: I will respond to this post below, under "Question about GPS"--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 13:55, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: As Bayes explains, the papers do say that relativity was used in GPS. Just what is the disagreement among physicists? I didn't see any in your references. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:43, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: No, none of the papers state that a physicist or group of physicists provided the complex relativistic predictions and that those predictions were incorporated into a particular GPS system. Engineers don't study relativity, and if physicists provided these predictions to a GPS system then there would be (a) names of physicists, (b) dates of incorporation, and (c) adjustments based on results. None of this happened.

::::: The claim that relativistic predictions were actually used in an actual GPS system wouldn't last 5 minutes on a witness stand at trial. It's pure fiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:20, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Theory of Relativity (moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]) ==

I found it offensive that you labelled my edit a "liberal edit". I was not aware of the Corpuscular Theory of Light, and therefore I did not know what "Newton's theory" in that sentence was referring to. Since there was no link (as there is now) to a page which shows Einstein's formula being two times more than his previous one, which was stated to be same as Newton's, I changed the sentence to the best of my knowledge - that light was viewed as a wave through ether at Newton's time, and therefore his theory of gravity does not apply.

How my mistake is a "liberal edit" is beyond me.
[[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:47, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: Please accept my apologies. By way of explanation, not as justification, liberals love relativism and their spin on the theory of relativity, and exaggerate everything associated with it. Claiming that relativity predicts the bending of light while Newton did not is one of those exaggerations. A simple search on the internet before deleting something here is always advisable, and that simple search reveals how Newton's theory predicts the bending of light too (though not by as much). I think this Newtonian prediction is in high school physics problem books, so it is not obscure.

: Regardless, thanks for your efforts and I look forward to more additions by you here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::I'll search the internet before making changes next time. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:04, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Ashlafly, I am concerned about the overall tone of the [[relativity]] article. Some statements suggest the presence of an anti-relativity agenda. Am I correct in guessing that this stance is due to a perceived link between moral relativism, the Democratic party, and the scientific concept of relativity? If so, I'd like to point out that while scientific funding by the government is certainly a political issue, actual scientific research is a separate issue and is independent of political leanings. The outcome of a proper experiment does not depend on whether the scientists conducting it are conservative or liberal. You are indeed justified if you are objecting to overzealous extrapolations based on scientific findings (such as moral relativism being based on scientific relativity), but such extrapolations have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific findings themselves. IMHO, encyclopedic articles on the scientific concept of relativity should stick to the science and not go into philosophy or politics. Furthermore, criticism of concepts such as moral relativism should be concerned with the merits (or lack thereof) of the concepts themselves, not on sound science that has nothing to do with it. Attempts to discredit relativity because of perceived links to philosohical or political positions that one disagrees with are not scientific, and fly in the face of undeniable experimental verification, basic facts (like how GPS satellite clocks function) and essentially universal acceptance of at least the basic principles. If you would like to incorporate some of the material on the current relativity page into a separate article, such as [[Historical views of relativity]], a personal essay, or something similar, then I would be all for it. I have not yet edited the relativity article heavily, but please see [[Talk:Theory of relativity]] for some of my specific conerns.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:56, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: I have already responded to this above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:32, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

== Question about GPS ==
Does Newtonian mechanics predict that clocks on GPS satellites will diverge from clocks on earth? That is not an easy question to answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:32, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:As far as I'm aware, no. It's relativity that predicts that there will be a divergence in time, for reasons already discussed. However, I want to throw in: both of you aruging about whether GPS satellites use relativity are correct in certain ways. Andy, you're correct that there is no actual use of relativity on the circuits on board the satellite. For those arguing that relativity is used, you're correct too; based on predictions from both general and special relativity, the clocks on the satellites are fine tuned with an offset to minimize the nano-second order deviations from clocks on the ground. Then, for practical purposes, newtonian based approximations are acceptable accuracy-wise. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 14:08, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

: Mr. Schlafly, I apologize for not responding more quickly. Newtonian mechanics cannot account for the observed divergence in clock rates. Classically, inertial reference frames are related by [[Galilean transformations]]:

:: x' = x + vt
:: t' = t

:: where x and x' are positions in the rest and moving frame, respectively
:: t and t' are times in the rest and moving frame, respectively
:: v is the velocity of the moving frame relative to the rest frame. Note that frame labels like "rest" and "moving" are arbitrary.

: According to those transformations, time in all inertial frames is the same (t' = t), and therefore no time dilation is predicted. However, the Lorentz transformations that relate inertial frames according to special relativity DO predict time dilation. So that would allow for corrections based on the relative speeds of the satellites. However, you could reconcile the time difference using classical mechanics IF you assert that the speed of light in the moving frame is different from the speed of light in the rest frame; that would essentially mean that the satellites are measuring a different light speed than the earth is. Such assertions would conflict with experimental evidence.

: Another, more significant time dilation effect is due to gravitational time dilation, predicted by general relativity, which is dependent on the curvature of spacetime. Newtonian gravity incorporates an "action at a distance" principle and does not incorporate spacetime curvature, and therefore predicts no gravitational time dilation.

: Also, your statement that no sources have been provided showing that corrections for relativistic effects were historically incorporated is incorrect, as I have twice quoted from a Physics Today article (see above) showing that devices allowing for such corrections to clock frequencies were used when the satellites were first launched. I'm still convinced we have a misunderstanding; the satellite clock frequencies have used and do need relativistic corrections, but once those corrections are implemented, Newtonian physics works fine for communication and position calculations (although some sources seem to indicate that may not be true for fast-moving objects, like jets and so forth). However, you have successfully convinced me that there is something of a political element in some areas of science :)--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:40, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Bayes, it's wrong to assert that Newtonian mechanics does not predict time differences in GPS clocks. You can't build a clock that would be uneffected by acceleration under Newtonian mechanics.
:: Let's be frank for a moment. It's absurd to insist that an experiment proves theory A is superior to theory B when there is no understanding of what theory B even says about the experiment. Theory A may indeed be better than theory B, but superiority is not demonstrated by that experiment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:26, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::: You got a physics paper saying that relativity explains the GPS clock differences to within 1%. There is no Newtonian explanation for the differences. Just give the fact, and let the reader decide which theory is superior. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:48, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: The paper does not demonstrate that relativity predictions were incorporated into GPS. No paper demonstrates that.
:::: A few (not many) papers claim that observed GPS clock differences can be explained by relativity. That is a very different claim, and requires examining carefully the assumptions made in the calculations to justify a claim that the theory matches an observed result. It also requires comparing the calculations to Newtonian calculations, which the papers utterly fail to do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: Yes, of course those papers compare to Newtonian calculations. That is why they are called "GPS clock differences". They are the differences between the relativistic and Newtonian calculations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: No they don't. Those few papers attempting to match relativity theory with GPS clock results all implicitly assume that the effects on the accelerated clocks from Newtonian mechanics are zero. That is likely wrong. And that explains why there are so few papers and so few physicists who claim personally to have confirmed GPS results with relativity theory.

:::::: If GPS results really did confirm relativity theory, then this would be in textbooks and classroom assignments. It isn't. Only a few obscure physicists even make the claim asserted here, and because they implicitly make the assumption that Newtonian effects are zero, their claims are not credible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: Yes, of course the Newtonian effect on time are zero. What are you suggesting -- that some unknown Newtonian effect might predict a GPS clock difference that just happens to match the relativistic calculation? The fact remains that the GPS clock differences are predicted by relativity, and not by any other theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: There is a Newtonian effect on the clocks. Yet this was not even addressed by a few obscure physicists who claim to derive, using relativity while disagreeing with other experts, the exact same result as the observed GPS time differences. This omission hardly inspires confidence in their unverified work. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: It wasn't addressed because it doesn't exist. Do you have any reliable source that says that a Newtonian effect can explain the observed GPS time differences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:13, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: And if there is no such paper, then the relativity claim about GPS must be true??? No, the relativity claim about GPS needs to stand on far better logic than that.

::::::::: In fact, the few papers claiming relatitivy is confirmed by GPS, written by obscure physicists, overlooked the Newtonian effects on the clocks. If you think you can build a clock immune from Newtonian effects, then patent it immediately. Can't be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:49, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

<----

Please identify the calculations that predict a difference in time. Bayes has already shown that time in all inertial reference frames is equal and identified how he derived this statement, so there's obviously something we're missing. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:57, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Andy, if there is no paper saying that a Newtonian effect can explain the observed GPS time differences, then it is correct to say that relativity provides the only known explanation for those differences. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: No, we shouldn't accept the equivalent of "relative proof." Just because a flawed proof or claim is better than other flawed proofs or claims does not mean it is acceptable. Would any mathematician embrace a flawed proof because it is better than other flawed attempts to prove the same theorem? I don't think so. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:: If you don't want to call it a "relative proof", that's fine with me. I am just correcting errors. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:06, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::: Here are the facts:

:::*GPS satellite clocks have mechanisms to correct for frequency offsets caused by time dilation. I don't see how this can be disputed, unless you want to stubbornly deny that such devices exist, in which case you can claim that cars don't have engines.

:::: It hasn't been proven that the frequency offsets are due to "time dilation." Instead, you assume what you claim to prove. Your logic is circular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*Newtonian mechanics does not predict ANY time dilation because it regards time as absolute, even in accelerating frames. Again, I don't see how this can be reasonably disputed, outside of winning a Nobel Prize. There are no reputable sources that predict Newtonian time dilation because there is no Newtonian time dilation.

:::: No one said that Newtonian mechanics does predict time dilation. This is a strawman argument. What is true is that Newtonian mechanics effects the operation of clocks in accelerating frames.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*Relativity does predict time dilation. All reputable physicists (not just a few obscure ones) can attest to that.

:::: OK, this is true, but purely theoretical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*The predictions of relativity are in good agreement with the frequency offsets on GPS satellite clocks. Several papers on the topic have been cited on this page.

:::: A few papers by obscure physicists have made this claim, but these papers raise questions like disagreements among relativists and a failure to address Newtonian effects on the clocks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::If you want to flat-out deny the above, then I guess I shouldn't waste my time trying to improve the article. I'll also point out that some significant creationist ideas depend on relativity to explain the starlight problem (God creating the Earth inside a massive gravitational field), so it's not an amoral atheist conspiracy.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:57, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: Relativists love to exaggerate relativity. Earlier, someone here claimed (based on what he had been taught by relativists) that only relativity predicts the bending of light from gravity. Wrong again. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

<---

You state, ''"No one said that Newtonian mechanics does predict time dilation...What is true is that Newtonian mechanics effects [sic] the operation of clocks in accelerating frames."'' Those sentences are contradictory. Newtonian mechanics does NOT predict any difference in the operation of clocks. Furthermore, what do the frequency offsets do if they don't compensate for time dilation?? Are they decorative?? Clock frequencies have to be adjusted ''because the clocks run at different rates''. And whatever extrapolations "relativists" come up with have nothing to do with the science.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:36, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that's correct. If you wanted to make an anti-relativity statement, I think that here is the most that you could say correctly is this:

* GPS does not prove relativity, in the sense that no experiment ever proves a theory. There is always the possibility that someone will come along later with a better explanation.

* Being able to calculate the relativistic corrections is not truly essential to making GPS work. Nowadays the satellite clocks are synchronized so frequently that predicting the clock drift is not necessary. If relativity were never discovered, then the satellite corrections could be made without anyone realizing that the system was just adding relativistic corrections. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:02, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::RSchlafly, although I disagree with your decision to remove some of the discussion here, I agree with your position. My only issue is that your second bullet still leaves open the question of why the clocks drift, or why they need to be synchronized often, and implies that we don't have a good explanation. However, we do have a pretty good explanation--relativity can predict such discrepancy to high precision. If GPS is mentioned in the article, I would prefer that we insert language similar to "Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth. Currently, relativity provides the best explanation for such adjustments (insert refs)" Does that sound any better? I'm open other suggestions.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 16:28, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't know what you mean about my "decision to remove some of the discussion here". What discussion did I remove? I did want to remove the 1996 quote because it is out-of-date and out-of-context. Anyway, I inserted your proposed 2 sentences. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:01, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: I was referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ATheory_of_relativity&diff=259155&oldid=259114 this edit]. Anyway, not that big of a deal now; I appreciate your attempt to fix the article, although those attempts have now been effectively neutered [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=next&oldid=259513] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=next&oldid=259528]. The GPS section has now grown so large that it may now detract from learning about relativity. I wonder if it is not better placed on the GPS article rather than this one.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 12:19, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: Sorry, I apparently accidentally lost some comments. I just tried to restore them. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:53, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

==Skepticism==
Edits like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=259513&oldid=259511 this one] made in the last few days are again consistent with the overall skepticism for relativity present in the article. The physicist in question is indeed involved in research into alternatives to general relativity. He appears to support [http://ecolloq.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/2001-Spring/announce.alley.html Yilmaz theory], which is not especially well-regarded by the scientific community [http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/ASGRG/ACGRG1/fackerell.html] [http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504050]. Even if it turned out to be an improvement on GR, it would still predict time dilation and other relativity-esque things, so I don't see what would be gained by denying all of GR but then embracing Yilmaz theory. GR is constantly being tested because a.) it is in conflict with quantum mechanics and b.) it is the current gold standard for theories of gravitation, and the limits of current gold standards are where new physics lie. Physicists I know who are doing research on alternative theories of gravitation teach classes on relativity, and emphasize its success; they aren't "skeptics" who want to throw it in the trash. Improvements on GR are likely to include GR as an approximation, as Newtonian mechanics is an approximation to GR.

Relativity is the current best idea we have to explain a lot of things and works to within experimental uncertainty for all tests of it performed so far. This article should reflect that success instead of embarking on a misguided ideological quest to discredit it in favor of Newtonian mechanics, which is known to have limits. And what I've said applies to GR; SR is even more established. Aschlafly, your problem with relativity appears to be that it is called "relativity" which you believe allows it to somehow be associated with moral relativism. Would your objections still hold if it were named "Reference Frame Theory"? Please remove the skeptical claims, as their inclusion implies willful ignorance to anyone who visits this page.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:37, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, we're factual on this site. Exaggerations about the theory of relativity or anything else are not allowed here. For example, one editor here claimed that relativity predicts the bending of light but that Newtonian mechanics does not. That is false. Some of the claims here about GPS using relativity have also been false. This isn't allowed in a credible encyclopedia. Go to Wikipedia if you want to stretch or distort the truth to suit your personal views about what the facts should be. Here we state what the facts are.

: Similarly, we don't delete or censor factual scientific information here. You recently deleted factual information without justification, and your deletion has been reverted. Please abide by our [[rules]]. Thank you and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:21, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Andy, I don't get the point of your edits. Under Ostensible Paradoxes, you have a 2001 article that says "If confirmed, the finding could mean ...". That was 6 years ago. Was it confirmed, or not? The following results are somewhat interesting, but obscure. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:14, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

== Nasa on spacecraft and relativity ==

Three of the items found with a quick search:
* Cassini refines measurements of general relativity with its trip around the sun [http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm]
* Voyager 1's slingshot around Saturn showed frequency shifts in agreement with relativity [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html]
* Gravity Probe B is a satellite launched and demonstrates frame dragging and geodetic warping of space [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html][http://einstein.stanford.edu/]
Given these examples, I believe the passage recently added:
:In addition to GPS discussed above, NASA has launched numerous space probes and missions, but none of them have ever used the theory of relativity in their timing mechanisms even though they experience much weaker gravitational fields in space.
is inappropriate and misleading. Even if the space craft where not ''designed'' with relativity in mind (the Gravity Probe B certainly was designed with it in mind), Voyager and Cassini and others demonstrated the effects of relativity as they dipped into gravity wells and out of them with the frequency of the signal being sent to Earth. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 12:47, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:: The current statement is correct in the entry and we do not delete correct, educational information here. You cite some interesting articles which could also be added if they are given detail and explanation suitable for a high-quality encyclopedia. I took a quick look at your articles and they seem to be designed for public consumption, lacking satisfactory detail of a scientific level. But feel free to add a paragraph '''without exaggeration''' that explains clearly what you think these experiments demonstrate. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The [[libera]] edits and censorship have been reverted. This is not [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 17 December 2007 (EST)

I'm not trying to be liberal or censor, but I doubt anyone thought any less of Dicke due to his support of Brans-Dicke - which is merely the addition of a scalar field to the tensor of GR - in fact, all of einsteinan GR is viable under Brans-Dicke - if the scalar field is set to null - the difference is the allowable effect of long-distance large masses that is not rsquared. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 15:16, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:Um... this is supposed to be targetted towards high school students. Your really doing nothing but babbling to me, because I don't understand what you're talking about. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 20:04, 17 December 2007 (EST)

I made a change that was first related. Even by the methods that science uses to deny christian beliefs they both fail. Putting it that way is a little stronger, as well as more accurate. It's kind of hard to say that "string theory" has been a failure when just about every physicist who wants to work these days needs to learn and be productive in it. It's just entirely "thought experiments" though, and quirking math to make it fit. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 20:02, 17 December 2007 (EST)

If this article is directed at high school students, Dicke would not be mentioned, as his contribution to the theory of relativity was limited. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 09:11, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:His importance to this article for Conservapedia is that he believed in something other than General Relativity, and although very intelligent, never received a Nobel Prize for any of his findings. The point being made is that if you disagree with GR, that you won't get a Nobel Prize. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:13, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Why you would disagree with GR is beyond me, but… --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 14:16, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Whether or not I disagree with GR is irrelevant. This wiki has a goal and purpose, and you need speak toward that audience. The intention of this article is to question and critique GR, not to assume that it is automatically true. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:21, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::You realize that what [[User:PhysicsNut|PhysicsNut]] was explaining - as I understood it - was that Dicke ''didn't'' really believe in something other than General Relativity? All that "babbling" was describing why Brans-Dicke theory differs little from GR (PhysicsNut, feel free to correct me on this). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:19, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::: That's correct. Brans-Dicke with Omega approaching infinity is General Relativity per Einstein. At no point did Dicke doubt that matter bent space-time. He merely postulated that there was another effect of matter that was not an r-squared effect. He didn't win the Nobel because someone else heard the CBR first - Dicke was just the one who realized it was proof-positive of the Big Bang. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 16:44, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::: It's bias to insist on describing theories that compete with relativity in terms of relativity. Also, the explanation for why Dicke, one of the finest physicists of the 20th century responsible for ''multiple breakthroughs'', did not win a [[Nobel Prize]] is not as plausible as the reason given.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Says who? Don't we need "authoritive sources for all the changes you want to make," or is your insinuation that Professor Dicke (who proved the Big Bang as his most notable breakthrough) was a young-earth creationist enough? [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 20:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)

This article is an embarrassment. Whatever - this project is obviously doomed. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 21:05, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Your attitude is completely unhelpful. You should not continue to post. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:21, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Maybe so, Puellanivis, but still, try not to write off editors so quickly! [[User:Physicsnut|Phyiscsnut]] is only new here, and may not have understood how [[Conservapedia]] differs from [[Wikipedia]] or other [[MSM]] outlets. Many editors have moved beyond initial misunderstandings to find ways to contribute positively to Conservapedia, despite ideological differences - so you needn't necessarily drive them off right away. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:06, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::: I don't why there are so many edits to the content page here, and I'll have to sort through them again. Relativity is a magnet for [[liberal bias]], but we're not going to allow such bias here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:21, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::Feebasfactor, your point is very well received. I definitely agree with your point. But people will not get anywhere without discussing and considering. If they express an attitude that this site will never be helpful if it rejects their viewpoint, then that's just silly. Aschlafly, I believe I had cleared it up fairly well with my last revert, but please feel free to review it. I think it attracts so much liberal bias, because they feel like it's home turf, or something, and get mad when anyone insults it. I suppose it's kind of the same thing as the liberals insulting the Bible. It just evokes such a strong response, that liberals get stupid (more so) and don't stop think and consider. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 00:27, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::: Insult relativity all you want. Insult the memory of Robert Dicke and you can rot. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 20:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Physicsnut, you're making no sense. Please don't pollute our pages with namecalling nonsense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:11, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Nobel Prize Contradiction ==

In the beginning of the section Evidence for Relativity you state that, "There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity." This is part of your reasoning as to why GR is not scientifically viable, yet in the section Philosophical Impact of Relativity you state that Robert Dicke is still a an accomplished physician despite his never being awarded any Nobel Prizes. Now it seems to me that if you wish to still credit Robert Dicke as an accomplished physician, which is certainly true, then it would seem only fair to leave out the comment about GR never gaining Nobel recognition. At least not in the context of trying to discredit it. You can't have it both ways. Either it's possible to be reliable and not gain Nobel recognition, or not gaining Nobel recognition speaks to the validity of the subject. One or the other; can't be both. --[[User:Aralith|Aralith]]

: Your logic is defective, because Robert Dicke (physicist, not a physician) was slighted due to bias ''in favor of the theory of relativity''. That bias obviously does not explain the lack of Nobel Prizes for relativity. It's the lack of evidence that is the reason there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:: If the Theory of Relativity is so commonly accepted among physicists (meant to write that in the last post but the wrong word came out of my fingers) how could it be that the Theory of Relativity hasn't gained Nobel recognition, which is voted on by a commitee made up of the same scientists who support said theory unless it is possible for a subject (person, theory, etc.) to be extremely important but not Nobel Prize worthy? In which case it makes perfect logical sense that both Dicke and GR could be a great person/theory respectively but not gain recognition from the Nobel committee.

== legal right to abortion ==

"For example, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama helped publish an article by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to abortion.[39]"

Unfortunately there is no link to the article in question. It would interest me much what the right to abortion has to do with the alleged curvature of space. Either the space is curved, or it isn't. Neither of both could ever affect my moral convictions.

{{unsigned|Harald}}

:This entire section is ridiculous and irrelevant. Clearly the curvature of spacetime was being referred to as a metaphor. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]]

::Please rewrite the section and/or move text to other articles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Where is the reference to Obama helping publish the article? The current reference points to the JSTOR article abstract, which does not mention Obama's involvement whatsoever. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 15:33, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

== Paradoxes? Nobel Prize? ==

Why are these things labeled as paradoxes? The rule is the speed of light IN A VACUUM is constant WITH RESPECT TO INERTIAL FRAME. The variability of c (the speed of light) through a medium is accepted and irrelevant as far as SR is concerned. That is due to the absorption and reemission of photons by atoms as light hits travels through glass (or air or fiber optics cable). Similarly, relativity neither prohibits nor "encourages" a c that varies with the age of the universe. Indeed, the nature of the constant is still a mystery, and it may indeed be dependent on some factors we are unaware of.

If anyone is confused, shoot me an email and I'll either give you a full explanation or point you in the direction of a good resource.

Also, there are several reasons Einstein never received a Nobel Prize for relativity:

-he recieved a prize for the photoelectric effect,which has laid the framework for quantum mechanics (arguably just as important). They may have had qualms over giving two to the same person (they haven't done it yet).

-initially, there was some resistance against it by the old guard of physicists who had wasted their lives pursuing the alternative (and stupid) ether explanation for the nature of c.

-the Nobel committee favors ideas that have practical applications (hence no prize for mathematics), and at the time relativity had none.

-as to why they haven't given him one recently...well, Einstein's dead, and they don't give prizes posthumously. (A sticking point, since the full significance of a theory might only be fully realized generations after its inception).

So saying the Nobel prize hasn't recognized Einstein for relativity is misleading and irrelevant.

And now I'm curious. This article seems to have an anti-relativity bias. Why is relativity unAmerican or unChristian (besides the fact that Einstein was a German Jew)?

And what's up with the Obama reference? I don't think God asks politicians (liberal or conservative) for their opinions when he establishes His natural law. (unsigned by User:QED)

:I looked at your edits for this and found them to be wanting. The information on the Nobel committee is accurate. It's a small part of the article and no specific conclusions are stated from it. I can see why you would believe this is not a slight on relatively, nevertheless it is true as written. In the absense of any counter evidence, such as writings by the Nobel committee explaining this, it should be allowed to stand. Your other point is, temporarily, out of bounds. You may believe that relativity allows for faster than light movement 'virtually', but unless you have a source, it's not going to be included. In other words your conjecture is not going to trump a source that appears to take a neutral position.

:Lastly, do not try to play the minority card again. You aren't Johnny Cochran. The article on Einstein is extensive and written with great respect. I'm assuming you could already have checked it up to see the view on him at CP. Consider this to be your one and only warning in this area. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:38, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:: User: Learn together's analysis is superb. The polemic comments above by QED seem to have little relation to the actual entry here, or to science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

== Questions ==

The introduction refers to "a principle which led to the first theory", but as far as I can see, there's no further reference to or explanation of this. What is this referring to?

It's been asked a couple of times above, but not answered as far as I can see: What relevance does Obama's comment have in this article?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:54, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: The reference to "principle" should be to postulates. That's been fixed. The reference to Obama is explained enough, don't you think? It describes political support for the theory, and use (or misuse) of it for political gain.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:45, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
:: It hasn't been explained on this talk page at all. Harald asked the question above, Kristkrispies added a criticism, and the only reply was from Ed Poor suggesting the section be rewritten. QED asked about it also, and the reply didn't address that point.
:: However, rereading the footnote (or did I miss that before?), I can see a very tenuous connection, but not one that warrants it being included in this article. I suggest it be removed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:44, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, I'm assuming you're referring to the Obama reference. The heading explains it. Political insights are a key part of this site, and explaining [[political benefit]] to something is essential to understanding why it is emphasized and/or misrepresented. The [[theory of relativity]] is used, or misused, to advance [[liberal]] goals, and the Obama reference is an important illustration of that. Would you like to see more examples?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Yes, I was referring to the Obama reference. Not, it's actually the opposite of the heading, because it is (mis)using relativity (physics) to support something political, not political support of relativity which is what the heading refers to. And as such, it's only of marginal if any real relevance to an article about relativity. I guess, though, I can see ''some'' point in it. That is, it's like an article about [[comet]]s mentioning that there was a musical group named [[The Comets]]; a bit of barely-related trivia, but the sort of thing that Wikipedia and Conservapedia sometimes do (often under the heading of "cultural references"). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

== My edits ==
I added a bit more information in the introduction to general relativity, because, as written, the article didn't really explain what the idea behind general relativity was. I don't think the edit is perfect, so people are free to tweak it or add more.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:12, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I also deleted "at infinite speed" from the sentence that said in classical physics light travels at infinite speed in a straight line. In classical physics, light still travels at c (approx 300,000 km/s), as Maxwell or any book on electrodynamics can tell you. In fact, it was this very observation that got people all caught up in the ether theory, because Maxwell's equations made direct reference to the speed of light. Consequently, people assumed that the equations had to be referring to the speed of light with respect to some fixed medium, i.e., the ether. Of course, we all know how well that theory worked out.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:21, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I removed the sentence about the Nobel prize committee not recognizing SR/GR in the evidence for SR/GR section. Mostly, the sentence just seems out of place with the rest of the section. Also, the reference provided was just a link to the Nobel committee homepage.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:49, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I removed the last section: time dilation and creation science. If we start including every crackpot scientific theory ever proposed, this page is going to become enormous.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 14:00, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:I see you are not around to respond, but including the latest creationary thinking doesn't mean that crackpot theories will be included. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== New Edits, Proposed edits ==
This article needs some major work, and I don't mind diving in and trying to correct some things. I added something on the equivalence principle because the existing information about general relativity was mostly mathematical with no physical insight. I'll try to clean up more when I have more time. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I also corrected a mistake about force defined in special relativity. The way it was written it wasn't defining a vector. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Further, I would really like to clean up the experimental evidence section, but there appears to be some contention regarding GPS, so I thought I'd discuss it with other editors here. The GPS definately DOES include some relativistic corrections. Consider the 1996 paper referenced in the article, on page 193 of the journal, page 5 of the article the authors tell us "The GPS operational control system corrects the pseudoranges measured by its monitor stations for the sum of the gravitational and velocity effects." What the article discusses is that the corrections are merely the average corrections, not the full specific velocity/gravitational effects. The article is being used misleadingly to make an unsupported claim. If no one objects in a day or two, I'll make the changes. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I'd also like to remove the stress on Dicke's theory, as Dicke's theory is basically just an extension of GR. Dicke's theory is still a metric theory of gravity involving curved space time, so most of the discussion of GR should be applicable to Dicke's theory. Dicke's theory should probably be included in another article. Also, the contention that Dicke didn't get a nobel because he proposed an alternative theory needs some supporting information or a citation or I think it should be removed. Again, if no one objects, I'll make the change. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I also plan, given time, to give a more "layman" style description of GR following my brief discussion on the equivalence principle. For students, diving straight into tensors, geodesics and field equations will most likely obscure the physics. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

== Einstein's Cross/Ring and Gravitational Lensing==
I think it'd useful to have a picture of gravitational lensing in the proof section. As I'm not an admin, I can't upload it. There's the picture found on wikipedia which is known as "Einstein's Cross," but there are plenty of other examples of gravitational lensing that can be found in the public domain: [http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/search.php?words=lens&x=0&y=0&method=and&format=normal&sort=score&config=picturealbum&restrict=entire_collection%2Fpr&exclude=]. I suggest picking a nice looking one and displaying it. I'm personally partial to the double ring found here: [http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire_collection/pr2008004a/]. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 20:43, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

: The images don't add anything new of substantive value. What's really needed here is more explanation about whether twice as much bending of light by relativity is really predicted and shown, compared to the prediction of bending of light by Newton's theory. Most people are misled to think that Newton's theory does not predict the bending of light, when it does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:53, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I tried to edit, read it over, reverted it as it wasn't making sense. However, I think there should be something about photons being able to move at speeds other than c in the bit about Newtonian lensing. My phrasing was really poor, thus the self-revert. I may take another crack at this later when I can get the words right.--[[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 21:22, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

::: The bending of light in Newtonian physics is not a trivial issue. The mass can approach zero and it still bends, for example. How much it bends is debatable, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:35, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Do you think it'd be a good idea to create a page about the bending of light under Newtonian Dynamics? Most people don't know about this and I think an explanation that's less technical than the linked source might help. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 15:07, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== Science And Math Facts That Prove Einstein's Blatant Error In His Relativity Theory ==
With all due respect, but with regard to truth in real science, my writing here is to provide undeniable mathematical and science fact that special relativity is false science.
For information this math proof was written on Wikipedia about two years ago and they squelched the truth in science by a vote of 8 to 1, and even though a supposed expert in relativity wrote that the math proofs did in fact prove relativity to be totally wrong, in the end he chose to live a lie and to squelch the truth.
In the end you can also squelch truth in real science by determining that truth by the undeniable science and math facts written here or to live according to truth. Either is your choice but squelching will only suppress science facts and true science. So I am going to write the science and math that shows undeniable truth and you can decide. [[User:StevenCrum|StevenCrum]] 16:31, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

:A section on "critiques of Einsteinian relativity" would be good. Do you remember the name of the expert? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:58, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

== More regarding the criticism of LIGO ==

As a student of physics, I feel myself almost obliged to add something to the discussion regarding LIGO, particularly as I work for a Professor that is part of the LIGO collaboration and have actually attended scientific conferences where the subject is addressed (though to be fair my work with her specifically deals with another one of her collaborations, Borexino).

First, as mentioned in previous discussion, it is indeed true that it was understood that LIGO, like many scientific undertakings, would need to be refined and calibrated before reaching its design sensitivity. To claim the LIGO is a failure before it has reached its design sensitivity is just as ridiculous and ignorant as criticizing any other tool or piece of equipment for not functioning before it is properly calibrated. It isn't like the LIGO collaboration is trying to pull any fast ones on anyone by being secretive about this - just do a Google search for LIGO to bring up their web page, where they discuss the details of this matter.

Secondly, it is true that the "success" of the experiment cannot be known prior to its being conducted, but if it could, what would be the point in conducting the experiment in the first place? Experimentation is a necessary aspect of science because scientific investigation fundamentally deals with the discovery of knowledge not previously known to us, and because it is not known to us, even its ultimate usefulness cannot be known a priori. The rate of observed events under the initial design sensitivity is predicted to be very low, so it would not be very surprising if we did not observe anything until advanced LIGO debuts. Even still, there is a fundamental uncertainty in the rate of events that will be seen. Maxwell was once asked what the usefulness of electromagnetism could ever be, to which he replied "What good is a newborn baby?" I do not believe I need to highlight the usefulness of electromagnetism in the modern world.

Which brings me to my third point, which is the enormous significance LIGO holds in terms of scientific potential. If LIGO is successful, it will revolutionize modern day astronomy by providing a new method for detecting cosmological phenomena. Gravitational radiation would offer another method of "imaging" the heavens, independent of electromagnetic radiation. To say that LIGO would have limited scientific benefit would be a serious rebuke to the field of astronomy in general. Optical astronomy would be coupled with gravitational astronomy as a valuable check on astronomical results attained by optical methods alone. But of course, the fundamental uncertainty we have as to what the observed rate of events will be reflects the fact that we do not know with complete certainty what cosmological objects exist, hence the very reason that LIGO would be useful.

Even more revolutionary would be if LIGO failed to detect gravitational waves. If you only assume the existence of a gravitational field, and that disturbances in that field cannot propagate faster than the speed of light, then by the very definition of wavelike phenomena, you have gravitational waves. Gravitational radiation is a prediction of General Relativity, and as such, were it to be disproved, it would falsify a prediction of a scientific theory. To say that this is not valuable would be to suggest that, for example, Michelson's experiments in search of the aether were not valuable, whereas in reality they gave supporting evidence to the idea that there is indeed no aether. At the very least, the experiment should be able to place certain restrictions on the rate of observed events. If gravitational radiation were not found, and this represented a serious contradiction with the rate of events predicted, it would be ABSOLUTELY ENORMOUS in terms of scientific relevance, and I cannot stress that enough. Something huge, somewhere in our understanding of the world, would have to be revised, be it the idea of the gravitational field, causality itself, etc. As a practicing scientist, I would almost hope that LIGO fails to see gravitational radiation, just because the scientific implications would be so unimaginably radical and weird, and force us to completely reexamine how we perceive the universe. But this subject could be argued until it reaches the realm of some very deep scientific philosophy - scientific theory is generally not viewed as being "completely true" or "completely wrong," but as a method of predicting physical phenomena, which eventually is replaced with a more accurate theory. Newtonian mechanics is not so much wrong, as it is not a good enough approximation in certain specific applications. If you want a metaphor, think about scientific progress as continuing to improve our Taylor expansion of the universe.

Though I suspect given the general tone of this article, somehow the death of GR would also please most of the contributors to this encyclopedia, as if General Relativity, a scientific theory, is somehow inherently a "liberal" idea. I'm sure that when Einstein formulated it, he envisioned it being used by Barack Obama to support a woman's legal right to terminate her pregnancy. Though, I hope for the sake of those contributors that General Relativity is either disproved, or is shown to be a "conservative" idea, because if it does adequately describe our universe, is a "liberal" idea, and God created the universe, then either God is a liberal, or he has a very weird sense of humo(u)r.

Just to get this nonsense out of the way now, I'm a registered independent. I vote, based on all of the relevant information I have been able to attain via what I believe to be credible sources, for whoever I honestly believe will be able to fulfill the duties of the office they seek, and I don't think anyone can ask any more of me than that. If any of this leads some of you to believe that I am incapable of discussing the theory of General Relativity, then I surely and sincerely have nothing but pity for you. --kfratus

: What are you talking about? The article has only one simple sentence about LIGO. Is that sentence correct or not? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:13, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

:: First, if you'll take a closer look at the talk page, you'll notice that there has been a good amount of discussion of the usefulness of LIGO, and that was what I was principally referencing. Secondly, the article in reality contains three sentences that in some way reference LIGO, albeit only one of them by name. The last sentence specifically mentions LIGO, the second sentence is clearly directly referencing LIGO without naming it, and the first claims that research involving the theory of relativity receives a disproportionate amount of funding. I would regard the first of those sentences as a matter of scientific opinion, which I addressed in my comments by pointing out how much impact LIGO could have on the entire astronomy community. The second and third sentences may not be incorrect, so much as they are worded as half truths. LIGO has been unsuccessful, or has failed, to detect graitational waves so far. To assert that LIGO has been unsuccessful in general would be entirely untrue, and is completely dependent on your notion of the "success" of the experiment, which I also addressed - LIGO has indeed managed to reach its target sensitivity, and whether or not they manage to detect gravitational waves, their results will still have a huge impact on the field of physics, which I would consider a successful experiment. --kfratus

:::Hopefully, when LIGO disproves so-called "[http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=gravity+waves gravity waves]", a relativist working on the project will be honest enough to call LIGO what it is. In this way, LIGO may end up being a very, very expensive way of '''disproving''' relativity, once and for all.
:::I doubt it, though, with all that grant money on the line. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 23:35, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: Maybe it is unfair to say that LIGO has been unsuccessful. But what about Gravity Probe B? That experiment seemed like a big expensive flop to me. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:26, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::I just want to make sure that the people here criticizing LIGO understand that the frequency range of the gravitational waves it was built to detect predict a variations in spacetime by only a factor of 10^-21. LIGO's longest vacuum tubes are 4km long. So physicists are attempting to measure a change in length approximately 1/2500th the diameter of an atomic nucleus.

:::::: Yes, that is why some people predicted that LIGO would fail. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

And to the poster who linked to youtube video of "gravity waves". Those ARE NOT gravity waves. Those are clouds.

:::::::As a passer-by stumbling upon your conversation, I never really meant to end up leaving this many posts, and I apologize if I'm violating your 90/10 rule, or anything like that. But I just wanted to clarify something that I see come up very often. I frequently run into people who have this impression that all scientists are members of some secret organization that is trying to hold knowledge from the public, and that they have their own personal reasons for trying to manipulate the body of scientific knowledge. While I cannot speak for all scientists, any of the ones that I have ever met (myself included), would be absolutely more than happy to welcome more people to our field of study. Most physicists I have met enjoy what they do, and would be very willing to pass their knowledge onto others (and one would have to admit that if we were somehow manipulating the entire body of public knowledge, we'd have to be doing a pretty good job of keeping every single scientist in the entire world quiet about the real truth - not very practical). And with respect to the comments made by BHarlan, I can assure you that most scientists would actually LOVE to disprove general relativity. In many cases, scientists are not famous because they confirm the prediction of a theory, but because they disprove one, thereby radically changing what we know about the world around us. The reason Einstein was so famous was because he disproved the Newtonian picture of the universe, not because he confirmed some prediction of it. But this is just like any other profession - think about it, if a rival of yours was successful in some way, wouldn't you be just dieing to somehow prove them wrong and rub it in their face? Scientists are people too, subject to the same personality traits as everyone else. This is why most physicists feel relatively comfortable with the scientific process - they know that if something is proposed as a theory, there will be a thousand people just itching to prove it wrong, thereby stealing the limelight for themselves. I think that if I ever found a way to disprove relativity, I'd practically have a heart attack out of excitement (and you can be sure I'd get a Nobel prize for it, too). In fact, it is already a well known fact that GR must be wrong at at least some level, because as it is formulated now, it's not compatible with some of the basic tenets of quantum mechanics. Though, I'm still pretty sure we'll see gravity waves, if you want my opinion. Gravity waves are predicted by ideas much more fundamental than GR (aka, the finite speed of light), and so GR could be be wrong, and we could still have gravity waves - as long as you define the propagating influence of gravity as a "wave," and assume that information can't travel faster than the speed of light, then there you have it, really. And with respect to the video of the clouds, those are actually "gravity waves," but of a different sort. The term comes from how the Earth's gravitational field effects atmospheric conditions. So it is the same term for two very different things, which unfortunately may lead to some confusion for some people. And with respect to Gravity Probe B, I admit that I do not know as much about that experiment, and off the top of my head would not really be able to debate it. Though if I remember correctly its data analysis is scheduled to continue into 2010, so I would hesitate to say anything until then (other than the fact that in principle, I find its goals fairly relevant - if you really wanted to test the geometrical nature of GR, you should try to confirm/disprove one of its craziest, most non-intuitive predictions - aka, frame-dragging).

:::::::But I can assure you, I have met plenty of people who are very politically conservative, and believe in gravity waves. In fact, many deeply spiritual people believe that relativity is a sign of God's existence. The basic idea goes that if relativity were not true, there would have to be some preferred reference frame, which would have to be chosen somewhat arbitrarily. But how could a divine creator just make some arbitrary choice like that? Not very elegant, if you ask me. In fact, I have heard that some people actually cry when they finally understand GR, because of what an elegant theory it is. If you want to read more about ideas like that, I definitely suggest Brian Greene's book, "Fabric of the Cosmos." If you want my honest opinion, I have yet to come across anything in my study of physics that I believe is a serious threat to the existence of some intelligent creator. From what I can gather, most physicists don't even concern themselves with such an aim - if God exists, then he exists. Our goal is to study what we can see, and make useful predictions based on that. If it's all just a result of God, then so be it. The only result will be that we've come to know Him a little better through out study of the universe and its workings. --kfratus

:::::::: The article hardly says anything about gravity waves. Are you suggesting some change to the article? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:00, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

== General Questions ==

The article suggests that Newtonian physics somehow suggest the bending of light, which is impossible according to Newtonian physics. Since a photon has zero mass, it cannot be bent by the force as described by Newton.

* Huh? I thought it was Newton who '''discovered''' the bending of light, which occurs as light enters a [[prism]]. It is because the various frequencies of light bend by different amounts that we get the [[rainbox]] effect (see [[spectrum]]). Or I have I totally forgotten my [[high-school physics]] and [[history of science]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Next point, Newton's action-at-a-distance theory of gravity seems to be taken as fact. The idea that general relativity violates this is used as a point against it. Newton himself stated, and I quote:

"It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the
mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and
affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must do, if gravitation,
...., be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason, why I
desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should
be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act
upon another, at a distance through vacuum, without the mediation of
anything else, by and through their action and force may be conveyed
from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no
man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking,
can ever fall into it."

Therefor, even the founder of classical mechanics saw action-at-a-distance as problem, so how is it in any way evidence to contradict a well tested theory?

: Oh, ignoring phenomena such as quantum entanglement, are we? --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 22:57, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
:: Actually, no. The reason that a grand unified theory is necessary is because of the discrepancies of the quantum world and the macro world. Both have been tested, neither conclusively, but evidence is in their favor. All I am saying here is that you can't use this (logically) as a point to disqualify an entire theory. Especially when you use this point when referencing a person (Newton) who had a problem with it.

::: Kindly use the signature button (10th from the left above) to "sign" your comments, so we can tell who's saying what.

::: Newton assumed nothing; he "feigned no hypotheses." Accordingly, he didn't have "a problem with it." It was his peers who could not accept it. Newton's quote above does not question "action at a distance," but is commenting on the nature of matter.

::: Many still refuse to accept action at a distance (and non-locality), as your own viewpoints demonstrate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
:::: Still refuse? As one of your relatives pointed out, there is some support for it, such as quantum entanglement, but on a large scale (say larger than the what is it now, 1 km?) past where quantum entanglement has been proven, there is no proof or any proof to suggest it should be true. And, I'm sorry, but I have to say. Don't assign my viewpoints to me sir. I will decide what I think based on fact. What I form as opinion, I will state as such. I don't understand how people can read this article with any knowledge of physics and agree with it. None of my professors, mentors, or scientists that I have met would support such statements. The fact that you are doing so proves the disgusting and twisted lengths that some people will go to in order to make established fact comply with their own super-conservative beliefs. It is people like yourselves that are ruining the republican party and make me scared for the future of America.--[[User:RobertSJ|RobertSJ]] 23:22, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

::::: So even though non-locality and action at a distance have been fully proven in laboratory experiments, you claim "there is no proof or any proof to suggest it should be true" ''beyond a certain distance''. Surely you don't think there is one set of laws for less than an arbitrary distance, and another set of laws for larger than an arbitrary distance. No, the real problem here is that some people, perhaps including yourself, do not and will not accept action at a distance regardless of the proof.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Next point, several "obscure physicists" is not the same as almost the entire community of physicists (which is the actual truth here.) Gravitational redshift perfectly explains the way that signals between earth and GPS satellites are different in time. That is how current GPS positions are calculated.

You mention LIGO at the very end and gravity waves as well. There is no prior mention. The prior mentions should explain what gravity waves are, why they are so weak, why they can probably only be detected from very massive binary systems, and why even when these massive binary systems are found the radiation should be so weak that the immense precision of LIGO and LISA are required.

Just some points on things that are not accurate or need to be clarified in order to not leave the reader with a false interpretation of scientific fact.

:Also edit, I am a physics major attending a well-respected and also conservative school (Vanderbilt). I have conducted research in physics at a national lab (ORNL), and like to keep up on this kind of thing. I am a moderate but conservative leaning voter.--[[User:RobertSJ|RobertSJ]] 23:22, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I responded in greater detail above, but let me just add that not everything you've learned is true, and not everything your professors state is true either. Hopefully you'll admit at least that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

: Photons have zero rest mass, but they are not at rest. A reference is given for the deflection of light as predicted by relativity theory. So the article seems to be correct about the bending of light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:41, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

::I wish that critics of CP would help us write [[basic physics]] articles instead of trying to "prove us wrong". Please help me finish the "[[bending of light]]" article, in accordance with what we all agree about Newton's discoveries many decades ago. Then we can discuss how to present [[quantum physics]], okay? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:04, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

== Non-Locality and Quantum Field Theory ==

There is no action at a distance, nor non-locality, in quantum mechanics nor field theory. None. You're confusing two different subjects.

First, action at a distance: True, in Newton's gravity, there is action at a distance. But this is totally different from anything to be found in QM or field theory, which have no action at a distance. All Hamiltonians in the standard models of field theory (QED, electroweak, QCD) are strictly local Hamiltonians. Forces are exerted by passing virtual bosons back and forth in space, like footballs. Interactions (like electron/photon, then photon/electron) are all 100% local.

The fact that Newton's theory assumed action at a distance (without proof) does not mean that ALL theories require action at a distance. Why should that follow? Why should modern theories be limited by Newton's unproved assumptions? Quantum field theory is immensely more accurate, measured objectively, than Newton's gravity force ever was. QED (with special relativity built in) predicted the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron accurate to one part in a TRILLION. Newton's theory was never even close to that level of accuracy! Newton could never accurately compute the orbit of Mercury or gravitational lensing to one part in a trillion! Or billion. By objective criteria, field theory is more accurate than Newton.

Second, non-locality: non-locality is not the same as action at a distance. Action at a distance requires exertion of a FORCE. Nothing in QM is in fact non-local. The only thing non-local about QM is the Copenhagen interpretation of wavefunction collapse, which is not a part of the equations, but a way of visualizing the effect of observation a QM system.

You have mentioned quantum entanglement as a supposed example of non-locality. Entanglement, and phenomena like quantum teleportation, do not exert FORCES, so they are not actiona at a distance! Further, quantum entanglement can never be used to transmit information faster than the speed of light. Hence, there's no contradiction between QM and SR. Field theory has SR built in. There is no experiment, in quantum teleportation nor EPR paradox, Bell's inequality etc., that can possibly transmit information FTL. Describe one experiment, just one entanglement experiment, that can supposedly transmit info FTL. I dare you. Just one.

So what is this supposed "non-locality" then? The Copenhagen interpretation of QM says that the wavefunction should "collapse" (revert to a single eigenfunction) everywhere simultaneously when an observation is made. If this really happened, it would be a problem for SR, because in SR, simultaneity is relative to the observer. But, two problems. First, this supposed "collapse" can never be observed and can never be used to transmit info FTL. Second, the Copenhagen interpretation is deeply flawed because it never defined what an "observation" was. It is no longer the most popular interpretation; among physicists, the Many Worlds interpretation is more popular now, because it precisely defines what observation means, in terms of quantum decoherence, so MWI connects better to macroscopic thermodynamics.

If you want to (groan) argue the point, you can argue that Copenhagen and Many Worlds are both non-local, but so what? They're visualizations, not equations, and certainly not forces, nor "actions"!! When neither visualization scheme can be used to transmit info FTL, nor exert a force, this is no problem for SR at all!

The only big problem here is that field theory is incompatible with GR, not SR. True. Everybody knows this is the biggest problem in physics. No one knows whether the flaw is in GR, field theory, or both. However, either way, there is no problem between field theory and SR. Field theory has SR built in, and is (objectively measured) the most precise scientific theory in history. If you argue this, I'll swamp you with experimental proofs. [[User:Cuddlytakun|Cuddlytakun]] 15:53, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

:"Cuddlytakun", you've obviously made up your mind that [[action at a distance]] and [[non-locality]] must not exist. But all evidence is against your view. Would you support spending another billion dollars of taxpayer money looking for [[gravitons]] to support your view? I hope not.

:How about this: raise ''private'' capital for searching for gravitons to support your philosophy. Then we'll see how many really agree with you, rather than just going along for the ride.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:10, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

Au contrere mon frere, you made up your mind that action at a distance is the only type force possible. I have nowhere said action at a distance is impossible. I've said Newton never proved, could not prove, it was the ONLY possibility. I suppose it's possible for both to exist. In field theory this would mean a Hamiltonian that is part local and part non-local. Sometimes the idea is kicked around. Mathematically, non-local Hamiltonians are a pain in the ass to compute with, and counterintuitive, but theoretically possible.

Why have you decided that action at a distance is the only possibility? Just because Newton's theory assumed it without proof, this does not mean all forces in nature must likewise be action at a distance. Think about this: suppose you and I are ice-skating. I toss you a football. When I throw the ball, reaction force pushes me backward. When you catch it, the collision pushes you away from me. Basic repulsive force at a distance, composed of local pairwise interactions. All forces in the standard model (electrodynamic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear; that is electroweak and QCD) work that way. The footballs are virtual bosons of spin 1.

"All evidence is against your view"? What evidence? What are you talking about!? "Your view"? Hell of a dismissive thing to say. It's not "my view", it's the view of everybody in physics, including Weinberg and Wilczek. Do you even know the meaning of the quotes you lifted out of Wilczek and Weinberg's speeches!? Seriously, do you have any evidence in mind, any at all, or are you just blowing smoke?

So you drag funding issues into it. As you know, the Europeans paid for the Large Hadron Collider so all the geniuses are moving to Europe. The last smart person to leave America, please turn out the lights.

But don't dismiss field theory as "philosophy". You're playing word games because you can't back up your statements with facts. These are facts: with field theory, you can predict the experimental value of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron to one part in a trillion. Of the muon, to one part in a billion. You can compute the mass of protons and neutrons and mesons from first principles, a priori! Which is an inherently relativistic computation (m = E/c2, with E from local QCD.) The Z boson's existence and mass were predicted before its discovery via electroweak theory, which is an entirely local Hamiltonian. Newton's gravity could never compute anything to an accuracy of one part in a billion, or compute masses of particles a priori, or predict new particles before they're observed! Why do you call field theory philosophy, but Newton's theory is science? Explain the definition of "philosophy" you're using here. Word games!
[[User:Cuddlytakun|Cuddlytakun]] 23:55, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

: Your "word-to-substance ratio" is very high; you are likely a [[liberal]]. See point 2 in [[liberal style]].

:I beg you to open your mind and learn here, for your own sake. Look at how you refused to address my simple point. Instead you cling to your perception of what you think others believe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

== Proof ==

The proofs for relativity are both mathematical and physical, yet this article tries to say otherwise. If someone doesn't know them then can I please put them in without them being edited out within minutes?

--[[User:Unlikelyconvert|Unlikelyconvert]] 13:14, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

: You're not going to push anything that is false here. Make your very best edit first and let's see how that looks, before you spend a lot of time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:20, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

I haven't tried to push anything, I've made a few edits already, corrected a couple of scientific mistakes, and said this. Can you please open your mind for just 10 minutes and look at both sides of this debate? Look at the overwhelming consensus on relativity, and then I will look at any source you give me forwarding your viewpoint. As I've said in another talk page, I am willing to change my views if you can prove them.
--[[User:Unlikelyconvert|Unlikelyconvert]] 13:27, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

: My mind is open, and I've invited you to make your very best edit first. Or, alternatively, state it here. Keep your word-to-substance ratio low, however. See [[liberal style]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:30, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Looking above, many people have stated the mathematical proofs in their different forms, yet you dismissed most of them almost out of hand. And I am not a liberal in respect to your definition, I am the (in my experience) the more common kind, the kind who will accept evidence. And you don't seem that open minded, as when i offered to put in proofs you started by saying I was trying to spread falsehoods. Proof makes something true, not false.

--[[User:Unlikelyconvert|Unlikelyconvert]] 13:34, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

: I'm going to move on to more substantive edits. Your word-to-substance ratio has been very high.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

::I'm going to ban uc if he doesn't stop trying to make people change their minds. If he wants to provide information about a novel, unproven or untested theory he's welcome to do that. He can even write about a theory which we conservatives know is false, provided that he doesn't try to present it as '''valid'''.

::Our policy is to label advocacy as such. Say, for example, that Professor X asserts theory Y because of Z. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:22, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-06-16T01:51:13Z

Lemonpeel:

== Mass section revision ==
Regarding my earlier revision of the "mass increase" section: I was careful not to change anything in that section without first asking permission. I explained on the talk page the reason for wanting to make the change, and more or less what I thought should be said. A user named "RSchafly" gave me the go-ahead to make the change, which I did. And I didn't do it in secret. I announced the change as soon as I made it, over a month ago.

Now you've decided you don't like it, and instead of asking me to fix it, or even saying simply "thanks, but no thanks", you dismiss the whole thing as "claptrap". Excuse me, but that is incredibly rude.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 21:51, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

== "Beautiful, but not robust" Quote ==

The beginning of this article provides a quote from Steven Weinberg on quantum field theory saying that QFT is "beautiful, but not robust." The way the quote is given here makes it sound like this comment was intended as a criticism of QFT. I looked up the source of the quote, and it appears (to me at least) that the quote was not meant as a criticism at all. I think what Weinberg was saying is that QFT has to satisfy a lot of strong properties, such as gauge invariance and renormalizeablility. It is in that sense that QFT is not robust. But the point I think Weinberg is making is that this gives us hope for finding a grand unified theory, since we don't have much wiggle room in the kinds of theories we can propose.

Given that, I propose the quote be removed, since its likely meaning is out of context with the way the quote is being used. --[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:00, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

:The quote speaks for itself, and your comment is unfortunately incoherent. A lack of robustness in a theory is obviously a weakness in the theory, not in the requirements for the theory. No, we're not going to censor the quote.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:51, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Well, clearly the quote does not speak for itself, since it comes at the end of a long lecture praising the progress that has been made in QFT. As far as lack of robustness being a weakness--it seems like this is the exact opposite point Weinberg is trying to make. He discusses, for example, how pleased he was when people discovered the need for theories to be renormalizeable. His point was that this was a hard condition for a theory to satisfy, and therefore imposing that condition greatly narrowed the search for the correct theory. I hope that clarifies the point I was trying to make. --[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 21:19, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

:"Lemonpeel", your statement is again incoherent. You state, "clearly the quote does not speak for itself, '''since it comes at the end of a long lecture praising the progress that has been made in QFT'''." The same could be said about some of our close-minded liberal editors. When one starts from zero, one can make infinite "progress" and still be virtually at zero.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:27, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

== Mass Increase Section ==

In the subsection on mass increase, it is claimed that the abandonment of the relativistic mass point of view "undermines" the famous equation <math>E=mc^2</math>. I find this statement rather odd. After all, the broader principle underlying this equation is that if <math>p</math> is the 4-momentum vector of a particle, then the magnitude of <math>p</math> is the same in all inertial reference frames and equal (in units where c = 1) to the rest mass of the particle. This remains true regardless of whether one uses the language of relativistic mass or not. As currently written, this subsection is liable to confuse anyone who is unfamiliar with the subject.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 20:41, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

: Go ahead and fix it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:27, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

:Done.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 13:37, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

== Great article ==

1) Superb avoidance of difficult science in a scientific article. Best not to be confusing.
2) Nice attention on Eddington rather than the theory itself.
3) Good mind reading regarding Eddington's dreams.
4) Nice work ignoring the facts about things that have been inventing using GR such as GPS

And rather than simply be sarcastic, I will work on a better article over the weekend. One that actually discusses the science.

== Special and general relativity ==

This article seems to combine the two. They are different ideas and need to be distinguished. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:21, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Agreed. Separate articles would make more sense. I don't have time to do the necessary work right now, but if no one else does it I'm sure I'll get to it eventually. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:11, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:If someone will split the pages, I'll help flesh them out.--[[User:ZLewis|ZLewis]] 10:42, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Moral Relativism line needs to go. ==

I have never heard anyone advocating moral relativism use either of the theories of relativity to do it. Actually, the only people who I've ever heard that from are relativity deniers like Fred Hutchison. Not only does that show a grave misunderstanding of the scientific theory, but also a misunderstanding of the phrase "moral relativism". In any case, you can't draw moral implications from scientific theories. When someone says that Einstein's theory of relativity implies some kind of moral relativism, they're really saying "The geometric theory of gravity allows me to internalize my moral decisions".

That line is ridiculous and irrelevant, and needs to disappear.

:I don't like it ''at all'' in its present form, but the word "relativity" is thrown around casually ''quite a lot'' and there might be justification for a section with a title like "what relativity is not."

:E.g. [http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/06/relativity.html Scott Adams], author of the Dilbert comic strip, says "Einstein’s great insight was assuming reality was not fixed, and that everything was relative to the observer" and goes on to say "I have extended that thinking to people..."

::I think using Scott Adams as a reference or a jumping-off point for discussion really constitutes holding one's self to a dismally low standard. He's posted his own theories of physics to his blog a few times, freely admitting that he knows they're wrong and that he just takes pride in the fact that the layman can't successfully challenge them. In all honesty, moral relativism is a perfectly valid subject for an article, but it doesn't have anything to do with physics other than an unfortunate overlap of words and definitions in English. Putting this section in just makes the authors look like they're bristling for a fight. [[User:Willforpresident|Willforpresident]] 21:25, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:What follows is interesting if not very profound, but dragging Einstein into it is not helpful.

:It just goes to show the value of jargon. When scientists give something a simple name like "relativity," people assume they understand it and misapply it. I'm just thankful that people aren't very familiar with mathematics or we'd be hearding about crop circles in Galois fields. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:50, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::I like the "what relativity is not" idea. Might be worth pointing out that relativity in physics didn't start with SR; there is such a thing as Galilean relativity, after all. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:57, 25 February 2007 (EST)

This line must go. It is not relevant to the article. Have a disambiguation page for relativity. The citation is completely incorrect. The website http://www.moralrelativity.com/about1.html says nothing about general relativity influencing moral relativity. This article says 'Relativity has generated a huge following by advocates of moral relativism,' but the website http://www.moralrelativity.com/about1.html does not make any mention of this statement, therefore it is improperly cited. Citations are supposed to support claims, and this one does not. (Read the website for yourself). Also, just because relativity is a homophone in this case doesn't mean it belongs in an article of the (general) theory of relativity. ''Please make a disambiguation page'' because this is clearly in the wrong place.

I removed the moral relativity part from this article and placed it in a new article called [[Moral relativity]]. Relativity here is clearly just a homophone, and moral relativity is irrelevant to special or general relativity. To illustrate my point, see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativity. Relativity in physics has a special meaning. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 00:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, moral relativism is a big reason for the political support of types of relativity. It's obviously relevant to this article, and the above criticism only reinforces the need to include a reference. We can debate how to say it, but censorship is not an option here. Go to Wikipedia for that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, then that can go into the [[Moral relativity]] article, which now exists. There is no support for your claim. Neither is there a need for political support for a scientific theory. The way you describe it, moral relativity references this theory of relativity, not the other way around. The theory of relativity neither relies on moral relativity in any explanation of it or needs it to be mentioned for a complete treatment of the theory, and therefore it is inappropriate to add it here. I direct you again to the dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativity in order to clarify that relativity in this sense has specific meaning in the domain of physics, and arbritrary theories that share the word are not in this domain nor are related in any concrete way, simply being homophones. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 18:40, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Someone added more about the moral relativity bit, so I put it in the right place: in the article on [[Moral relativity]]. The section says, "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views," which is about moral relavitity and how they use the theory of relativity, not how the the theory of relativity involves moral relativity. I challenge the writer again to find a work on the physics theory that metions moral relativity at all. Just because a page mentions the theory of relativity does not make it a legitimate part of the theory itself, and as such, does not belong in this article. If anything, the [[Moral relativity]] article should make a link to this article, not the other way around. I am not sure the agenda here, but it seems that someone would like to promote moral relativity by attaching it to unrelated articles. Please add your information to the correct article in the correct place. Again, here is the link: [[Moral relativity]]. Go crazy. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

ASchlafly, you added the line "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views" and gave a citation afterwards. If you read the page that you cite, you will see that the author merely uses Special Relativity to demonstrate how moral relativism works. He does not "seize" on the theory and does not use it to "legitimize" his view. Can you find a better source please? (or remove the sentence)

: I can't tell who or when this comment was made, because it lacks the signature (use the signature button above). But I will look for more sites about to support my statement, which should be easy to find. Frankly, I've never heard anyone doubt the statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps you've been listening the wrong people. No reputable explanations of relativity mention moral relativity. Find a reputable one. Don't look for moral relativity explanations that include physics relativity, because that information belongs in [[Moral relativity]], not here. You are researching the wrong topic. Repeat: look for information about the physical theory of relativity and see if you can find one that mentions moral relativity (not pages that talk about moral relativity and mention physical relativity). Furthermore, anyone can set up a web page and say whatever they want, so web pages are generally not a very good resource (unless it's the physics department website at MIT, for instance, because it has credibility in this field). You should find reputable scientific texts. And, please, stick the topic at hand: physical science topics needs physical science resources. There is ample room in the [[Moral relativity]] article to discuss. In fact, I'm surprised you aren't contributing more to that article (especially compared to how much you try add to in this article), since you seem to be very interested in the topic and are more knowledgable about it than physical relativity. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I've received no response. Can I remove the paragraph now? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 16:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::By the way, I checked the history, and MatteeNeutra made the uncited statement above about needing a better source or removing the sentence. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 17:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== <math>e=mc^2</math> not "attributed" to Einstein. ==

<math>e=mc^2</math> isn't just "attributed" to Einstein. When someone says "attributed", they typically mean that someone is given credit for an idea somewhat apocryphally. Einstein obtained the relation in his Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper, in which, from the Lorentz transformations, he obtained the relations:

<math>E = \sqrt{c^4m^2+p^2c^2}</math>
and then, as <math>p\to0</math>:

<math>E=mc^2</math>.

And these bizarre polemics are undermining what little credibility this encyclopedia has. Sneering at Einstein and glorifying the contributions of Ponicare makes all of the sense of arguing over whether Leibniz or Newton invented calculus, particularly since there are very palpable differences between Einstein and Ponicare's treatments of the subjects. And, I see someone has removed the "there is no evidence for the general theory", but I'm sure it will be back by this afternoon. That's ever weirder -- how on earth can someone say that "there is no evidence" and then, in the same article, link to black holes?

I'm not going to go back to that article on [[Dirac Notation]] to fill up all of those links with articles until I'm sure one of the administrators isn't going to replace them with accusations of quantum mechanics being tantamount to the Kabbalah, or something equally stupid. (unsigned)

: It is a fact that Poincare published E=mc2 and most of the rest of special relativity before Einstein. Maybe you think that this is sneering or glorifying, but it is a fact, and there is no serious dispute about it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:17, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: This is true, but what Poincare described was a specific case of E=mc2. An experimental result showed that there was momentum when a body ejected EM radiation, but the mass was unaccounted for. Poincare described the mass of the EM as m=E/c2. Einstein derived this formula from more fundamental assumptions, the speed of light is absolute, etc. This is why his work is so famous. In fact, in all of science, nothing belongs to any one person, even though they may get credit, but are supposedly discovered. Also do not forget that Einstein also published General Relativity.
::Furthermore, while Poincare regarded it as superfluous, scientists of the day were still trying to work with the luminescent ether. Einstein's work proved this unnecessary.
::Again this is a lesson in science. We are always trying to compress and refine our science. Einstein, while he of course drew on other's work and surely knew of Poincare's m=E/c2 paper, his work was more refined and simpler, deriving many principles, Poincare's and new ones, from a few fundamental principles. Poincare published a paper about a month before Einstein with similar work, but in science, no one person makes a discover. Don't forget, Newton has his Hooke. But like Newton, it was Einstein's derivation and formalizations that worked better. (unsigned)

::: Yes, Poincare described was a specific case of E=mc2, but so did Einstein. Einstein did not foresee particle annihilation or nuclear energy. Poincare's description of the ether as superfluous is nearly identical to Einstein's.
::: How was Einstein's work on special relativity any more refined, simpler, or better working? I deny this. Poincare showed a better understanding of the theory than Einstein. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Don't ask me, ask Lorentz. http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm

::::: OK, I looked at your link. The first thing I saw was a claim that the 1919 eclipse proved the General Relativity. We now know that eclipse proved no such thing. So much for the credibility of that link.

::::: The link does show that Lorentz and Einstein were patting each other on the back. That's fine, but it suggests a lack of objectivity towards the odd man out, Poincare. This dispute cannot be resolved by self-interested party, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Can't get much more credible than a publication by Lorentz on Gutenberg, bud. It may be dated, but it is closer to the date of Einstein's work. As far as I see you, you have the burden to prove your claim as much as everyone else has to support the opposite claim. Where is your evidence of credible sources? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 18:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Old version ==

I was just looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_Relativity&oldid=15341 an old version of this page], and the absurdity of the "scientific" claims made, combined with the low quality of the writing and blatant inaccuracies, make the article, quite frankly, almost intellectually offensive. I realize that this has since been rectified, but if this is the quality that is to be expected of Conservapedia articles, then I do not blame those who dismiss it as a failed attempt. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:12, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: be specific in your statements if you expect a response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I find the content reverted to in the above edit to be quite disturbing.

* The General Theory of Relativity does ''not'' reject Isaac Newton's "God-given" theory of gravitation, it simply provides an explanation for ''why'' it functions.

: that was obviously vandalism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* It is most certainly ''not'' a problem that the General Theory of Relativity is based upon mathematics as opposed to empirical evidence, as seems to be insinuated by this version.

: mathematics is mathematics, and unless there is empirical evidence it is not science.

::Mathematics describes physics. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* Albert Einstein's work ''did'' contribute to the development of the nuclear bomb. ''E=mc2'' describes the duality between matter and energy, the principle upon which the nuclear bomb, and all other nuclear devices, functions.

: nope. ''E=mc2'' is a statement of relativistic effect, not atomic power.

::Yes, but the mass lost in the nuclear reaction is converted to energy, which is the fundamental power of the weapon. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* "Nothing useful has even been built based on the theory of relativity." Sure, sure… nuclear power plants aren't useful at ''all'', are they? GPSs aren't useful ''at all'', are they?

: GPSs are useful, but they weren't built using General Relativity.
:: Without realativity describing gravitation redshift, the timing for the GPS satelite would be off by about 45 microseconds/day. Further reading on the matter at http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:08, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: I think Lorenzian relativity accounts for the GPS time dilation more precisely. But that isn't really my point. The GPS clocks are updated based on communications between the satellites and ground stations, not based on any theory. If you claim that GPS is built based on relativity, then you should be able to prove your case with an historical reference. No such proof exists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: That observation does not support the false claim that GPS is based on General Relativity. Other theories predict a dilation of time, and satellites are obviously synchronized based on communication, not theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::No, they have GR corrections built in. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::Can you please cite an alternate theory that accounts for the time dilation experiecned by the GPS satelites along with the math that matches that of relativity? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:17, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* "Most conservatives are skeptical since science is supposed to be about finding proof before a theory becomes a fact, not after." And ''where'' are the statistics that show this?

: Don't know who wrote that statement, but it's a correct statement of what science means.

::I was refering to the claim that "''most'' conservatives are skeptical since science…" (emphasis added) [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* Gravitons are not predicted by general relativity; much to the contrary, the two have not been reconciled.

* It is currently believed that space does indeed have curvature, what is described as "negative" curvature, giving it a saddle-like shape overall, but curvature nonetheless.

The denial of demonstrated principles because they do not coincide with your worldview is not scientific, it's purely reactionary nonsense. I'm not impressed by Examples of Bias in Wikipedia citing Wikipedians taking issue with this as a "bias". [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 16:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: OK, fine, no one is trying to impress you. The Wikipedia entry was biased and demonstrably false, as explained in [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Oh, and I mean no offense to Aschlafly. Although I do not necessarily agree with all his views, I do not wish to disparage him, and I recognize his value as a contributor. I've reconciled with him on this issue, and want to make clear that I do not mean this comment as an attack. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: I just realized that I had somehow managed to fail to see that Aschlafly's edit was a simple revert to a previous version. I don't necessarily agree with the decision, and I don't retract the points with which I take issue, but Aschlafly is not responsible for the content, and I'm sorry for insinuating that he was. I've changed some of my comment to reflect the fact that the edit was simply a revert. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Merge with draft==

There is a draft for this article [[Theory of relativity/draft | here]]. Surely it's about time these two were merged together or at the very least decide which one is to be continued. I will continue to work on Theory of Relativity/draft as I feel it is a much clearer article. What does everyone else think? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 07:33, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: Your draft article has some great stuff in it. Would you like to merge it into the main article now? However, please do not delete anything from the main article as part of the merge. Thanks and a good Easter to you.

: By the way, it appears that relativity is taught in college without using the concept of relativistic mass. But let's go with your relativistic mass as you wrote it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, I'll take a shot at a merge now. Relativistic mass is quite important to the theory, as from it we can determine that matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== This isn't Wikipedia ==

Teji, don't delete facts here that liberals don't like. This isn't Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Please read my explanation above. I don't think anyone likes unsourced information that is in the wrong topic. Please contribute to [[Moral relativity]]. I had to create that page while someone was adding information about it to the this topic. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Furthermore, that link is about moral relativity, not special relativity. It belongs in [[Moral relativity]]. It is shocking that someone so interested in that topic didn't even think to make the article. In fact, I started that article! [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:12, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here is what I said above in case you didn't catch it: ''No reputable explanations of relativity mention moral relativity. Find a reputable one. Don't look for moral relativity explanations that include physics relativity, because that information belongs in Moral relativity, not here. You are researching the wrong topic. Repeat: look for information about the physical theory of relativity and see if you can find one that mentions moral relativity (not pages that talk about moral relativity and mention physical relativity). Furthermore, anyone can set up a web page and say whatever they want, so web pages are generally not a very good resource (unless it's the physics department website at MIT, for instance, because it has credibility in this field). You should find reputable scientific texts. And, please, stick the topic at hand: physical science topics needs physical science resources. There is ample room in the Moral relativity article to discuss. In fact, I'm surprised you aren't contributing more to that article (especially compared to how much you try add to in this article), since you seem to be very interested in the topic and are more knowledgable about it than physical relativity. Teji 13:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)''

:I find it interesting that when you cannot support your information you resort to name-calling and statements about wikipedia. Does this site want credible and accurate information or information with an agenda? Because if it is the latter, please make a statement to that effect in your policy pages, or would that make this website too credible and accurate? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Teji, the statement does not claim that the theory of relativity supports moral relativity, but merely that supporters of moral relativity seized upon the theory of relativity to justify their views. "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views.[3] Historians such as Paul Johnson wrote about how the theory of relativity caused a sea change, justified or not, in 20th century thought." That statement is correct and should not be deleted. Read it, and reread it, and only comment further here if you can provide something that specifically refutes that statement. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:It is in the wrong place. The statement is clearly about [[Moral relativity]]. This statement is also correct: ''Jesus is God'', does it belong in this article? No. Here is another correct statement: ''morality is "what is the good" and ethics is "how do I practice it"'' from the moral relativity site. Does it belong in this artcle? Certainly not. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Correctness is not enough. There also must be accuracy. Information about [[Moral relativity]] belongs in that article. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Maybe you should change the title to just "Relativity". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, how do I do that? We could also make a disambiguation page, but I don't know how to do that either. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::RSchlafly, you've missed the point. This article is about the Theory of Relativity as a scientific theory. As such, the article should not talk about Moral relativity which, apart from sharing using the same word, is absolutely nothing at all to do with the Theory of Relativity. I also, do not think that the sentence about Moral relativity should be put on this article. At the very most a link at the bottom of this article to Moral relativity, but you may as well link it to a page on forestry for all the relevance it has. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 05:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Exactly, if you want to speak about moral relativists using special or general relativity as validation for their philosophy then it should be placed in an articlea bout moral relativism. It should '''not''' be here. Perhaps - perhaps - it could go in a section on the influence of the theory of relativity on 20th century culture.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why was quote about Dicke removed? ==

I added this quote about the Francis Dicke's theory. Aschalfy, why did you remove it without any comments? It is from the same time magazine article that is already cited in this article. It clarifies why Dicke's theory is less professionally accepted! Please read the article yourself. It shows that Einstein's theory was closer than Dicke's.

''But the J.P.L. experimenters reduced the margin of error to 4% or less by locating the distant spacecraft within 100 ft. of their actual position. Thus, when they calculated that the signal to Mariner was slowed down by 204 millionths of a second on its round trip, '''they dealt the Brans-Dicke theory a sharp if not decisive blow'''. Their measurement was only 4 millionths of a second off the Einsteinian prediction, but 18 millionths of a second off the Brans-Dicke figure.'' http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html

This is the same article that that is cited for the statement ''Physicist Robert Dicke of Princeton University was a prominent critic[7]''. The same article that shows why Robert Dicke's theory is not accepted among scientists. Dicke suffered not just because he criticized Einstein's theory, but also because his theory was not as accurate. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Time magazine is not an authority on whether Dicke's theory is better than Einstein's. Our [[rules]] are very clear not to cite journalists as authorities beyond their expertise. A scientific citation that I added shows that Dicke's theory is held in high regard to this day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The JPL isn't?

::: You've got to do better than that if you want a response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: And a link from the JPL http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/70s/release_1970_0566.html --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That's an old self-serving press release about only one study. My footnote about relativity, citing a renaissance in Dicke's theory, is more recent and more comprehensive, and is based on a astrophysics encyclopedia. So your cite is not appropriate.

:::: And another article http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/9404/dicke.html about Dicke's critique of relativity and where it failed to produce a better answer. Tests included sodium lines in the sun, distance to the moon, and precession of Mercury. I do not believe that it is fair to say that the ''theory'' is held in high regard today. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll take a look at this. I must say, however, that any article that starts out by calling its opponent a "crank" lacks credibility. But this cite is worth including to reflect the political bias against Dicke, resulting in his being denied the Nobel Prize.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::It actually specifically says that Dicke was not a "crank." [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Ah, yes. The author charitably concedes that Dicke himself was not a crank, just anyone who supported Dicke's view was.

::::: This article, which I'm reading now, is incredibly biased and one-sided. It declares the "General Theory" to be possibly the "greatest single achievement in physics ... of all time." And the author states his extremely biased view before telling us about testing results. Too bad this conflicts with the encyclopedia I cite in the content page. The value of this article is to show how intolerant supporters of the "General Theory" are of any criticism, including that by Dicke.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: If Dicke's results were as good or better than General Relativity, then there would be no issue at all. It also addresses reference #8 about not getting a Nobel Prize - that is because the prize is for discovery, not interpretations. He wasn't a theoretician and thus didn't have other theories and discoveries. The individual Dicke is held with high regard in the community - his theory is not (though it is respected in developing the framework for relativistic events). I am curious to see a citation that shows his theory as being respected for the results it gives. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::: Also the article you misuse by taking the whole renaissance statement out of says this in the same paragraph before your quote!
::::::::''Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time.''
::::::: [[User:Teji|Teji]] 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Muon experiment from another point of view ==

From the point of view of the muon in the experiment mentioned, time is not slowed down, but rather distance is compressed. So instead of dilating time 5x across 10km of travel at relativistic speed, the muon saw that space had compressed from 10km to 2km (also 5x) and it was still traveling that distance. Thus, the same result - just different perspectives. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:50, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ref: Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was never given a Nobel Prize. ==

I would like to remove this reference. Nobel Prizes are given for discoveries and advancements. Dicke was an experimentalist - not a theorist. He didn't make discoveries or advancements but rather proved or disproved what the theorists came up with. As such, the work he did was not something that was noted by those nominating for the Nobel Prize. Likewise, you won't see a book critic get a Nobel Prize for literature, no matter how good of a critic he or she may be. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:02, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: Given that there has been no comment on this in opposition, I am removing the reference until someone can dispute the question of if any of Dicke's work was the type for which a Nobel Prize would have been given. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:46, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: I'm reverting your change. Experimentalists win the Nobel Prize all the time. A prize was given to someone else for work Dicke was doing. In fact, experimentalists probably win the prize more than theorists. The deletion of that sentence is for liberal purposes, and we don't allow that here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Government support of relativity research problems ==

The section on government support of relativity research needs a big re-write, but it needs to be clear what is intended first. There are several specific complaints which seem to have been jumbled together:
#LIGO was a failure, and the money could have been spent elsewhere.
#Too much money is spent on string theory and similar theories.
#The government does not support research into (unspecified) alternate theories.

#This is just liberal crybabying. Not all experiments work, and you can't know ahead of time which ones will. Most such complaints about too much money being spent on some experimental program are based on the idea of government as sugar-daddy, and whining when sugar-daddy likes someone else best.
#This complaint is more legitimate, as there are serious claims that string theory is not a scientific theory. However, this complaint doesn't belong in this article, because string theory is not relativity; it's an attempt to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics. String theory would replace general relativity, if a coherent theory were formulated, and then tested.
#This complaint seems ridiculous, as the government has funded plenty of tests to verify general relativity; any experimenter who wants to test an alternate theory can devise a test which would produce one result if GR is correct, and another if the alternate theory is true, and ask for funding for a test to verify GR.

On the other hand, perhaps the section could be deleted altogether. [[User:Ultramontanist|Ultramontanist]] 02:02, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== Relativistic mass ==
This paragraph is nonsense:
: 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. But mass is not a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is unacceptable.

The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is. Some don't like the term "relatvistic mass", but for other reasons.

This is also nonsense:
:In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
::1. It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.
:: 2. The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
:: 3. The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

This is not a restatement. Relativity says masses cannot for faster than light. Probably not information either, but that is another principle. Parts 2 and 3 are confusing and misleading, at best. Relativity teaches that there are no inertial frames in the universe. The laws of physics apply throughout the universe. They apply whether there is acceleration or not. But special relativity has more to do with inertial frames.

I suggest getting rid of these "layman's terms". They aren't. They don't clarify anything for anybody. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:29, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== GPS edit ==

Bayes, your claim that GPS is based on the Theory of General Relativity is not correct. GPS synchronization can be done directly, and has never relied on the theory. Your edits should be reverted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:My apologies. I didn't mean to edit recklessly; I thought I was correcting a typo. In fact, the [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html source cited by that sentence] ''before'' I made my edit (and many other sources as well) indicate that relativistic corrections are, in fact, taken into account by GPS receivers. Clocks on the satellites run at different rates than those on the ground due to the fact that they are at a higher altitude, where gravity is weaker; hence the need for a correction for gravitational time dilation, as predicted by general relativity. Yes, that means that clocks in Denver tick slightly faster than clocks in New York. I would be happy to look at any sources you can provide that show how GPS keeps accurate time without those corrections.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:30, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Your citation is to a silly, unsupported and off-hand remark by a professor of astronomy. GPS was built by engineers in the 1970s, who would not have even attempted to calculated the time dilation using relativity. There would be no reason to rely on relativity, since the clocks can be and were synchronized more directly, more simply and more accurately by communicating with them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:09, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::1. Let me reiterate that the citation was there before I made my edit. The previous version denied that relativistic corrections are necessary, and then cited a source to the contrary. Your recent edit makes a similar claim, but cites a source that doesn't delve deeply into technical aspects of how GPS actually works, and is therefore irrelevant to the claim. 
:::2. You can dismiss the citation in question if you like, but it seems that the overwhelming majority of experts disagree; consider [http://www.aticourses.com/global_positioning_system.htm 1] [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp 2] [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf 3], which I doubt would be considered "silly, unsupported and off-hand remark[s]." 
:::3. GPS designers in the 1970s certainly knew about relativistic effects. Here's an exerpt from [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf 3]: 
:::[B]efore the first GPS satellite was launched in 1977, although it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require such a relativistic offset, there was uncertainty as to its magnitude, and even its sign. So correcting frequency synthesizers were built into the clocks, spanning a large enough range around the nominal 10.23 MHz clock frequency to encompass all possibilities. After the satellite's cesium atomic clock was turned on, it was operated for three weeks to measure its rate. The frequency shift measured during this initial period was found to be 4.425 parts per ten billion, agreeing with the relativistic calculation to better than 1%. 
:::4. Yes, communication with the satellites is possible. That doesn't change the fact that satellite clocks run at different rates than ground-based clocks, which would result in huge errors if the satellite clock frequencies weren't compensated for time dilation effects.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:17, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== Criticism of LIGO ==

The criticism of LIGO under the heading "Government funding..." should be viewed in context. The observatories are not yet operating at their maximum level of precision. The usual procedure when building large projects like this is to make sure they work at more imprecise levels, and then "tune" them closer and closer to their limits. It isn't surprising that LIGO has not yet detected gravitational waves, and the consensus is that such waves will be detected in the future. The [http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html cource cited] for that criticism even mentions that physicists are "confident" that LIGO will be successful. After all, the NSF doesn't shell out hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money on a coin flip; they were/are convinced that getting results is a slam dunk.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:48, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

: Hope springs eternal. I'm afraid you sound like an oil-well driller (wildcatter) who, after encountering one dry well after another in a region, says "just spend a little more money and drill again!"

: LIGO has been a disappointment so far, and there is no sign of success right around the corner. At some point accountability is in order, even if more money is to be spent searching gravity waves. Realize that this search has been ongoing for 100 years, without any detection. How many more years are necessary?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:12, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::While I fully agree that accountability for all major budget items is in order at some point, I don't think the oil-driller analogy is valid in this context. LIGO is still far from its designed sensitivity, as mentioned [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJM-4B5R97X-F&_user=1010281&_handle=V-WA-A-W-VB-MsSAYVA-UUW-U-AAVUWVWVAB-AABDYWBWAB-CEYDYDUEB-VB-U&_fmt=summary&_coverDate=01%2F21%2F2004&_rdoc=15&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%235314%232004%23994829998%23476198%21&_cdi=5314&view=c&_acct=C000050264&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1010281&md5=6a930932559a96137a8b6aafdb2d9372 here]. Plans are already underway to do go beyond merely detecting gravitational waves to doing astrophysics with them. Furthermore, detection of gravitational waves requires extreme sensitivity that can only be achieved with modern technology. Serious efforts to detect them didn't begin until the 1960s, when Joseph Weber built his bar detectors, and even then the scientific consensus was that his detectors weren't sensitive enough. Some scientific advances just have to wait for technology to allow their discovery. Tell you what, if LIGO is considered a failure in 10 years, I owe you a Coke.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:40, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::It's been nearly 2 years since your message above, and LIGO has been operational for nearly 7 years. Do you really insist on waiting a full 10 years (after spending a billion dollars) before allowing some accountability? LIGO soaked up a ton of research money that could have been spent on promising technology and potential cures.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

== Other issues ==
There are some other aspects of this article that I would like to consider adding to or changing.
*A fair amount of text is dedicated to Eddington's findings and not many other astronomical observations. Eddington published his results in 1919; obviously, since then, there have been many others who have improved on his observations.
*The "Ostensible Paradoxes" section should be heavily altered or removed; there aren't any paradoxes listed there. First, the SR postulates don't offer any opinion on whether physical constants have had the same value throughout the history of the universe; they state that all inertial observers get the same answer when they measure the speed of light. Second, there are several ways to measure wave velocity; some of the most common are [[group velocity]] and [[phase velocity]]. Both types of velocities can exceed the speed of light (''c'') without violating special relativity. However, the energy velocity and information velocity do not exceed ''c'', also in accordance with SR. There is nothing mysterious or sinister going on here; these concepts are addressed or at least mentioned in many undergraduate courses. Third, the universal constant ''c'' is the speed of light ''in vacuum''; the speed of light ''in materials'' is less than than ''c'' since the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of materials are different than those of vacuum. That means that matter can travel faster than light ''in a material'' without violating SR; try Googling [[Cerenkov radiation]].--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:28, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'm concerned about the use of some citations, which seem to be misrepresented in order to discredit relativity. For instance:
:*The Economist article cited does not attack relativity; it's a discussion of how GR is being tested to its limits, like any other theory. If any improved theory of gravity is found, GR is likely to be a useful subset of it, in the same way that Newtonian gravity is a useful subset of GR. And anyway, I thought non-scientific sources [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_relativity&diff=prev&oldid=95688 weren't supposed to used] in these situations.
:*The new cite for the statement ''There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views'' is an opinion piece about how moral relativists hijacked scientific relativity for their own purposes. The cite doesn't make that claim, and it doesn't show any data to support it. Frankly, I'd be very surprised if any such correlation existed. Even IF that kind of correlation existed, it doesn't belong in a scientific article.

:The overall tone of the article seems to try to convince the reader to be skeptical of relativity. It appears to me that such skepticism is ideologically motivated, e.g., ''Although the liberally biased Wikipedia contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries...'', ''The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project...'', ''There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views''. I don't fully understand the motivation, but it bears repeating that good science (of which relativity is a part) is independent of ideology.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:54, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:: You're not the first to deny a [[liberal bias]] in science. But surely you would agree that the following areas of science, and perhaps nearly of all science, are susceptible to political bias:

**[[global warming]]
**nuclear energy
**the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]
**claims of extraterritorial life
**demands for government funding of science

::--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I absolutely agree that deciding what science to fund, implementation of policies pertaining to scientific findings, or practical use of scientific results (like nuclear weapons), and perhaps some other issues not mentioned are or can be politicized. But I stand by my basic point: if you get a liberal to measure acceleration due to gravity on Earth's surface, and then get a conservative to do the same thing, they'll both get 9.8 m/s^2. Similarly, relativity has been around long enough, has useful applications, and is so successful in predicting experimental outcomes that it should not be subject to the same treatment as the more controversial topics you mention.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:24, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: You apparently don't concede the liberal bias in the majority of my examples above, such as global warming and SDI. When I worked as engineer at a research facility in the 1980s, we had an IBM scientist with impeccable credentials give a presentation claim that SDI was impossible, dangerous, and bad politics. It's silly to pretend that his claim of impossibility of SDI was unrelated to politics. Likewise, it's silly to pretend there is no political bias in global warming theories. But if we can't agree on that, then there is little point in discussing this further. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Did you read the first sentence of my post above? Global warming is an example of tough policy decisions that could be implemented based on scientific findings. Surely both conservatives and liberals agree with the basic finding that the earth is warming. Similarly, the political debate over SDI was about the USE of science and technology, not the FINDINGS of science and technology. Sure, scientists can have opinions about what to do with their findings, but presumably the experimental results are valid across political lines. In any case, this is an aside; my specific concerns with the article, as addressed on this page, still stand. I assume by your willingness to exit the conversation that you don't have any problems with me addressing them?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:48, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Your first sentence omitted any reference to global warming. Global warming is a liberal scientific theory about if and why the earth is warming. Yes, there are political biases in many scientific theories. If you can't accept that, then I urge you to become more open-minded first before trying to pretend that something is immune from politics.

:::: I have no objections to factual edits of this article that add information. I do object to pushing a liberal point of view by deleting factual information. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:02, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: Sounds good. However, the fact that GPS satellite clocks have built-in corrections for relativistic effects is something I inserted previously, and it was reverted. I hope you understand that I brought up these issues in an effort to accurately represent the science, and not because of some agenda. As I've said, I don't think special and general relativity are associated with political controversy.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 19:12, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Bayes, you continue to insist on a falsehood, and I attribute that to [[liberal]] distortions in what you've read elsewhere. Please recognize that politics does distort science. '''GPS satellite clocks were not built based on predictions made by the theory of relativity.'''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: See my post above, where I have cited several sources that assert the contrary. On the other hand, you have yet to provide any evidence of how GPS can work without taking such corrections into account. Your source for that claim does not address timing issues with regard to GPS. I have to say that I'm increasingly baffled by your continued denial of this verifiable fact. How would a vast liberal conspiracy gain from hiding how clocks work?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:00, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Bayes, you're talking to a former engineer. GPS was built by engineers, not by theoretical physicists. GPS never used the theory of relativity. If you continue to dispute that (likely due to [[liberal]] bias), then give me your very best cite for your claim that GPS used the theory of relativity and I'll look at it. Otherwise, drop it and move on to a different issue. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:41, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

GPS and relativity links:
* http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
* http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
* http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm (actual equations)
* http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
* http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~kpgokeef/pubs/ENGO625relativity.pdf (slides from an engineering lecture - see pages 23-30 for listing of relativistic effects GPS accounts for - note conclusions on page 31.)
--[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 21:53, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: No, you're not listening. Give me your best cite for the claim that GPS *uses* the theory of relativity. Pick out your best, that's all I'm going to waste time on, since the answer is obvious to any engineer: GPS never used the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:58, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:: In that case, I should probably reference http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf "GPS And Relativity: An Engineering Overview".
:: The first page introduction finishes with "In this paper, we compare the predictions of relativity to those of intuitive, classical, Newtonian physics; we show how large or small the differences are, and how and what applications those difference are large enough to make it necessary to correct the formulas of classical physics."
:: Lorentz Contraction is covered on page 2, Gravitational redshift on page 3, and the acceleration of the satellite on page 4.
::: "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 -4.45x10-10 (= -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."
:: Does that help answer the question? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 22:22, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::: The very first sentences of this paper prove my point (emphasis added):

:::: 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 - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: 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 remainder of the paper is theoretical speculation about how a future GPS system might use relativity. There is disagreement about how relativity might be used, as reflected by comments in the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:05, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: The remainder of the paper is about improvements to the GPS system. The paper was published in '97. In 2001, the system was updated. With Block II GPS satelites, OCS was rewritten so that it doesn't require constant updates from ground stations to reset the clocks http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/mail/igsreport/1994/msg00146.html (example of clock reset for relativity prior to 2001). Instead, now, accounting for relativity constantly the GPS satellites are able to offer much more accurate positioning (this was required, as mentioned by the paper I previously linked, the 6 meter accuracy - it is now required by the 2001 performance standard http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/2001SPSPerformanceStandardFINAL.pdf (page 20 of the document, section 3.4) . If you are willing to reset the clock periodically and accept errors between clock resets - then you can discount relativity. If you want high accuracy all the time, you must take relativity into account between synchronizations. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:58, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: The remainder of the paper is about '''proposed''' improvements to the GPS system. There is nothing indicating that those proposals were ever implemented. So that paper strikes out as support for the claim that GPS relies on relativity.

::::: Now you're pointing me to a new paper. I'll look at it in the morning but, as I said, pick your best one. If this paper strikes out also then I'm unlikely to keep looking at more and more papers to explain why each one fails to support the claim. Please provide your very best cite, as I requested before. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:07, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::How about [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf this one], written by [http://www.colorado.edu/physics/Web/directory/faculty/ashby_n.html Neil Ashby] for [http://www.physicstoday.org/ Physics Today], a major publication of the AIP. Again, I quote from a portion, although the entire paper is about the issue in question:

:::::"[B]efore the first GPS satellite was launched in 1977, although it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require such a relativistic offset, there was uncertainty as to its magnitude, and even its sign. So correcting frequency synthesizers were built into the clocks, spanning a large enough range around the nominal 10.23 MHz clock frequency to encompass all possibilities. After the satellite's cesium atomic clock was turned on, it was operated for three weeks to measure its rate. The frequency shift measured during this initial period was found to be 4.425 parts per ten billion, agreeing with the relativistic calculation to better than 1%."

::::You've now been presented with many sources from Rutm and I supporting GR implementation in GPS, and you have yet to produce one source that says that GPS works on only classical principles. Furthermore, I question your motivation in demanding one "best" source, since I anticipate that you will attempt to attack the "best source," perhaps by invoking "liberal bias" (as if it existed in this case--either the clocks run at different frequencies or they don't), ignoring the vast consensus, and proclaim "victory."--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 10:56, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, I think I now (finally!) understand what's going on. I think we have a misunderstanding here; we're talking about two different kinds of corrections. The paper supplied by Rutm (and quoted in the current article) is discussing relativistic corrections to the frequency of signals measured by the receivers. That paper is from the early 1990s, and at that time no relativistic corrections were performed for those signals (though corrections might be taken into account now). Throughout this discussion, I have been referring to the fact that clocks on GPS space vehicles have ALWAYS had built-in frequency offsets to account for the relativistic effects on moving clocks and clocks in gravitational potentials. It's a question of corrections made to the '''communications''' between GPS components and the '''on-board clocks''' of the satellites; the former are not as important, while the latter are very important. Any problems with inserting this nuance into the article?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 19:14, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Andy, that GPS quote is extremely misleading. It implies that the relativistic effects are too small to be significant. But the rest of the paragraph explains that relativistic corrections are necessary to meet the accuracy requirements of most users. The article is incorrect when it states, "Predictions of relativity have not historically been used to make the Global Positioning System (GPS) function properly." Relativity has in fact been used, and programmed into satellites and receivers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:48, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:That's simply not true. GPS adjustments have been based on observation, not theoretical prediction. Effects predicted by relativity are offsetting to each other and the experts could not even agree in which direction the small net effect would be.
:This is a matter of historical fact and it's astonishing that the demands to rewrite history about this are so persistent. The quote confirms the obvious: GPS adjustments are based on observation, not theoretical prediction.
:For those who claim to have such a thorough understanding of GPS here, how about answering the question below: does Newtonian mechanics predict any divergence in the clocks from the satellite compared to ground? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: No, the fact is that the GPS satellites have operated both with and without the relativistic corrections. The cited articles confirm that. You are completely wrong to say that relativistic corrections have not been used.
:: The relativistic corrections partially offset each other, but not entirely, and they are big enough to affect accuracy in a typical consumer GPS unit. It is also false to say that there is disagreement among physicists on the point.
:: If you were right, then find an article that supports what you say. That paragraph you quote ends with "large enough to make it necessary to correct the formulas of classical physics." Include that, and give the date on the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:09, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:The article first states the obvious: GPS is not designed using the theory of relativity. Then the article discusses an ongoing and unresolved dispute about exactly what the theory of relativity does predict for the numerous factors involved in the GPS system, and makes its own unverified claims. Relativity predicts time differences going in both directions, and there are issues about what the inertial frame should be. One article cited earlier, which I will try to find and reinsert, states that Lorentzian (not Special) Relativity generally matches observations best.

:GPS was built by engineers and there is no reason for them to rely on the theory of relativity. It is far simpler and more reliable simply to observe the time differences. Engineers don't study the theory of relativity, and if you think a physicist well-versed in the theory of relativity provided essential predictions for the GPS engineers, then who was he? Give us his name and he we can simply ask him. Was he nominated for a Nobel prize? Surely he would have at least published a paper about his work. Where is it????

:And where is the answer to the question as to whether Newtonian mechanics predicts time difference in the GPS system also? After all, if someone is going to claim that GPS confirms the superiority of relativity to Newtonian mechanics, then surely he must first make a statement about whether Newtonian mechanics predicts a time difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:56, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: What you say is just not true. GPS was designed with an understanding of the magnitude of the relativistic effects. The effects are well-understood, and no one was nominated for a Nobel prize for predicting the effects. Yes, there were engineers who didn't study relativity and didn't think that relativistic effects would be significant. They have been proven wrong. There are no unresolved disputes. You have been given several references that tell the story. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:41, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

::: To sum:

*** no physicists have been identified who supposedly incorporated relativity into the GPS design
*** no papers exist describing how relativity *was* (not "might be") used in GPS
*** references that have been provided describe disagreements among physicists about the relativistic predictions for GPS
*** those claiming that GPS confirms relativity compared to Newtonian mechanics don't know whether Newtonian mechanics also predicts time differences, which renders the comparison pointless.

::: I realize that historical revisionism is common in many areas, but I would hope that science would adhere to a higher standard. Sometimes, unfortunately, science seems be even more vulnerable to revisionism. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:04, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: I will respond to this post below, under "Question about GPS"--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 13:55, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: As Bayes explains, the papers do say that relativity was used in GPS. Just what is the disagreement among physicists? I didn't see any in your references. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:43, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: No, none of the papers state that a physicist or group of physicists provided the complex relativistic predictions and that those predictions were incorporated into a particular GPS system. Engineers don't study relativity, and if physicists provided these predictions to a GPS system then there would be (a) names of physicists, (b) dates of incorporation, and (c) adjustments based on results. None of this happened.

::::: The claim that relativistic predictions were actually used in an actual GPS system wouldn't last 5 minutes on a witness stand at trial. It's pure fiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:20, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Theory of Relativity (moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]) ==

I found it offensive that you labelled my edit a "liberal edit". I was not aware of the Corpuscular Theory of Light, and therefore I did not know what "Newton's theory" in that sentence was referring to. Since there was no link (as there is now) to a page which shows Einstein's formula being two times more than his previous one, which was stated to be same as Newton's, I changed the sentence to the best of my knowledge - that light was viewed as a wave through ether at Newton's time, and therefore his theory of gravity does not apply.

How my mistake is a "liberal edit" is beyond me.
[[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:47, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: Please accept my apologies. By way of explanation, not as justification, liberals love relativism and their spin on the theory of relativity, and exaggerate everything associated with it. Claiming that relativity predicts the bending of light while Newton did not is one of those exaggerations. A simple search on the internet before deleting something here is always advisable, and that simple search reveals how Newton's theory predicts the bending of light too (though not by as much). I think this Newtonian prediction is in high school physics problem books, so it is not obscure.

: Regardless, thanks for your efforts and I look forward to more additions by you here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::I'll search the internet before making changes next time. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:04, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Ashlafly, I am concerned about the overall tone of the [[relativity]] article. Some statements suggest the presence of an anti-relativity agenda. Am I correct in guessing that this stance is due to a perceived link between moral relativism, the Democratic party, and the scientific concept of relativity? If so, I'd like to point out that while scientific funding by the government is certainly a political issue, actual scientific research is a separate issue and is independent of political leanings. The outcome of a proper experiment does not depend on whether the scientists conducting it are conservative or liberal. You are indeed justified if you are objecting to overzealous extrapolations based on scientific findings (such as moral relativism being based on scientific relativity), but such extrapolations have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific findings themselves. IMHO, encyclopedic articles on the scientific concept of relativity should stick to the science and not go into philosophy or politics. Furthermore, criticism of concepts such as moral relativism should be concerned with the merits (or lack thereof) of the concepts themselves, not on sound science that has nothing to do with it. Attempts to discredit relativity because of perceived links to philosohical or political positions that one disagrees with are not scientific, and fly in the face of undeniable experimental verification, basic facts (like how GPS satellite clocks function) and essentially universal acceptance of at least the basic principles. If you would like to incorporate some of the material on the current relativity page into a separate article, such as [[Historical views of relativity]], a personal essay, or something similar, then I would be all for it. I have not yet edited the relativity article heavily, but please see [[Talk:Theory of relativity]] for some of my specific conerns.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:56, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: I have already responded to this above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:32, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

== Question about GPS ==
Does Newtonian mechanics predict that clocks on GPS satellites will diverge from clocks on earth? That is not an easy question to answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:32, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:As far as I'm aware, no. It's relativity that predicts that there will be a divergence in time, for reasons already discussed. However, I want to throw in: both of you aruging about whether GPS satellites use relativity are correct in certain ways. Andy, you're correct that there is no actual use of relativity on the circuits on board the satellite. For those arguing that relativity is used, you're correct too; based on predictions from both general and special relativity, the clocks on the satellites are fine tuned with an offset to minimize the nano-second order deviations from clocks on the ground. Then, for practical purposes, newtonian based approximations are acceptable accuracy-wise. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 14:08, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

: Mr. Schlafly, I apologize for not responding more quickly. Newtonian mechanics cannot account for the observed divergence in clock rates. Classically, inertial reference frames are related by [[Galilean transformations]]:

:: x' = x + vt
:: t' = t

:: where x and x' are positions in the rest and moving frame, respectively
:: t and t' are times in the rest and moving frame, respectively
:: v is the velocity of the moving frame relative to the rest frame. Note that frame labels like "rest" and "moving" are arbitrary.

: According to those transformations, time in all inertial frames is the same (t' = t), and therefore no time dilation is predicted. However, the Lorentz transformations that relate inertial frames according to special relativity DO predict time dilation. So that would allow for corrections based on the relative speeds of the satellites. However, you could reconcile the time difference using classical mechanics IF you assert that the speed of light in the moving frame is different from the speed of light in the rest frame; that would essentially mean that the satellites are measuring a different light speed than the earth is. Such assertions would conflict with experimental evidence.

: Another, more significant time dilation effect is due to gravitational time dilation, predicted by general relativity, which is dependent on the curvature of spacetime. Newtonian gravity incorporates an "action at a distance" principle and does not incorporate spacetime curvature, and therefore predicts no gravitational time dilation.

: Also, your statement that no sources have been provided showing that corrections for relativistic effects were historically incorporated is incorrect, as I have twice quoted from a Physics Today article (see above) showing that devices allowing for such corrections to clock frequencies were used when the satellites were first launched. I'm still convinced we have a misunderstanding; the satellite clock frequencies have used and do need relativistic corrections, but once those corrections are implemented, Newtonian physics works fine for communication and position calculations (although some sources seem to indicate that may not be true for fast-moving objects, like jets and so forth). However, you have successfully convinced me that there is something of a political element in some areas of science :)--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:40, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Bayes, it's wrong to assert that Newtonian mechanics does not predict time differences in GPS clocks. You can't build a clock that would be uneffected by acceleration under Newtonian mechanics.
:: Let's be frank for a moment. It's absurd to insist that an experiment proves theory A is superior to theory B when there is no understanding of what theory B even says about the experiment. Theory A may indeed be better than theory B, but superiority is not demonstrated by that experiment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:26, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::: You got a physics paper saying that relativity explains the GPS clock differences to within 1%. There is no Newtonian explanation for the differences. Just give the fact, and let the reader decide which theory is superior. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:48, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: The paper does not demonstrate that relativity predictions were incorporated into GPS. No paper demonstrates that.
:::: A few (not many) papers claim that observed GPS clock differences can be explained by relativity. That is a very different claim, and requires examining carefully the assumptions made in the calculations to justify a claim that the theory matches an observed result. It also requires comparing the calculations to Newtonian calculations, which the papers utterly fail to do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: Yes, of course those papers compare to Newtonian calculations. That is why they are called "GPS clock differences". They are the differences between the relativistic and Newtonian calculations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: No they don't. Those few papers attempting to match relativity theory with GPS clock results all implicitly assume that the effects on the accelerated clocks from Newtonian mechanics are zero. That is likely wrong. And that explains why there are so few papers and so few physicists who claim personally to have confirmed GPS results with relativity theory.

:::::: If GPS results really did confirm relativity theory, then this would be in textbooks and classroom assignments. It isn't. Only a few obscure physicists even make the claim asserted here, and because they implicitly make the assumption that Newtonian effects are zero, their claims are not credible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: Yes, of course the Newtonian effect on time are zero. What are you suggesting -- that some unknown Newtonian effect might predict a GPS clock difference that just happens to match the relativistic calculation? The fact remains that the GPS clock differences are predicted by relativity, and not by any other theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: There is a Newtonian effect on the clocks. Yet this was not even addressed by a few obscure physicists who claim to derive, using relativity while disagreeing with other experts, the exact same result as the observed GPS time differences. This omission hardly inspires confidence in their unverified work. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: It wasn't addressed because it doesn't exist. Do you have any reliable source that says that a Newtonian effect can explain the observed GPS time differences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:13, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: And if there is no such paper, then the relativity claim about GPS must be true??? No, the relativity claim about GPS needs to stand on far better logic than that.

::::::::: In fact, the few papers claiming relatitivy is confirmed by GPS, written by obscure physicists, overlooked the Newtonian effects on the clocks. If you think you can build a clock immune from Newtonian effects, then patent it immediately. Can't be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:49, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

<----

Please identify the calculations that predict a difference in time. Bayes has already shown that time in all inertial reference frames is equal and identified how he derived this statement, so there's obviously something we're missing. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:57, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Andy, if there is no paper saying that a Newtonian effect can explain the observed GPS time differences, then it is correct to say that relativity provides the only known explanation for those differences. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: No, we shouldn't accept the equivalent of "relative proof." Just because a flawed proof or claim is better than other flawed proofs or claims does not mean it is acceptable. Would any mathematician embrace a flawed proof because it is better than other flawed attempts to prove the same theorem? I don't think so. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:: If you don't want to call it a "relative proof", that's fine with me. I am just correcting errors. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:06, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::: Here are the facts:

:::*GPS satellite clocks have mechanisms to correct for frequency offsets caused by time dilation. I don't see how this can be disputed, unless you want to stubbornly deny that such devices exist, in which case you can claim that cars don't have engines.

:::: It hasn't been proven that the frequency offsets are due to "time dilation." Instead, you assume what you claim to prove. Your logic is circular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*Newtonian mechanics does not predict ANY time dilation because it regards time as absolute, even in accelerating frames. Again, I don't see how this can be reasonably disputed, outside of winning a Nobel Prize. There are no reputable sources that predict Newtonian time dilation because there is no Newtonian time dilation.

:::: No one said that Newtonian mechanics does predict time dilation. This is a strawman argument. What is true is that Newtonian mechanics effects the operation of clocks in accelerating frames.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*Relativity does predict time dilation. All reputable physicists (not just a few obscure ones) can attest to that.

:::: OK, this is true, but purely theoretical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*The predictions of relativity are in good agreement with the frequency offsets on GPS satellite clocks. Several papers on the topic have been cited on this page.

:::: A few papers by obscure physicists have made this claim, but these papers raise questions like disagreements among relativists and a failure to address Newtonian effects on the clocks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::If you want to flat-out deny the above, then I guess I shouldn't waste my time trying to improve the article. I'll also point out that some significant creationist ideas depend on relativity to explain the starlight problem (God creating the Earth inside a massive gravitational field), so it's not an amoral atheist conspiracy.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:57, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: Relativists love to exaggerate relativity. Earlier, someone here claimed (based on what he had been taught by relativists) that only relativity predicts the bending of light from gravity. Wrong again. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

<---

You state, ''"No one said that Newtonian mechanics does predict time dilation...What is true is that Newtonian mechanics effects [sic] the operation of clocks in accelerating frames."'' Those sentences are contradictory. Newtonian mechanics does NOT predict any difference in the operation of clocks. Furthermore, what do the frequency offsets do if they don't compensate for time dilation?? Are they decorative?? Clock frequencies have to be adjusted ''because the clocks run at different rates''. And whatever extrapolations "relativists" come up with have nothing to do with the science.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:36, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that's correct. If you wanted to make an anti-relativity statement, I think that here is the most that you could say correctly is this:

* GPS does not prove relativity, in the sense that no experiment ever proves a theory. There is always the possibility that someone will come along later with a better explanation.

* Being able to calculate the relativistic corrections is not truly essential to making GPS work. Nowadays the satellite clocks are synchronized so frequently that predicting the clock drift is not necessary. If relativity were never discovered, then the satellite corrections could be made without anyone realizing that the system was just adding relativistic corrections. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:02, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::RSchlafly, although I disagree with your decision to remove some of the discussion here, I agree with your position. My only issue is that your second bullet still leaves open the question of why the clocks drift, or why they need to be synchronized often, and implies that we don't have a good explanation. However, we do have a pretty good explanation--relativity can predict such discrepancy to high precision. If GPS is mentioned in the article, I would prefer that we insert language similar to "Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth. Currently, relativity provides the best explanation for such adjustments (insert refs)" Does that sound any better? I'm open other suggestions.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 16:28, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't know what you mean about my "decision to remove some of the discussion here". What discussion did I remove? I did want to remove the 1996 quote because it is out-of-date and out-of-context. Anyway, I inserted your proposed 2 sentences. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:01, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: I was referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ATheory_of_relativity&diff=259155&oldid=259114 this edit]. Anyway, not that big of a deal now; I appreciate your attempt to fix the article, although those attempts have now been effectively neutered [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=next&oldid=259513] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=next&oldid=259528]. The GPS section has now grown so large that it may now detract from learning about relativity. I wonder if it is not better placed on the GPS article rather than this one.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 12:19, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: Sorry, I apparently accidentally lost some comments. I just tried to restore them. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:53, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

==Skepticism==
Edits like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=259513&oldid=259511 this one] made in the last few days are again consistent with the overall skepticism for relativity present in the article. The physicist in question is indeed involved in research into alternatives to general relativity. He appears to support [http://ecolloq.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/2001-Spring/announce.alley.html Yilmaz theory], which is not especially well-regarded by the scientific community [http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/ASGRG/ACGRG1/fackerell.html] [http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504050]. Even if it turned out to be an improvement on GR, it would still predict time dilation and other relativity-esque things, so I don't see what would be gained by denying all of GR but then embracing Yilmaz theory. GR is constantly being tested because a.) it is in conflict with quantum mechanics and b.) it is the current gold standard for theories of gravitation, and the limits of current gold standards are where new physics lie. Physicists I know who are doing research on alternative theories of gravitation teach classes on relativity, and emphasize its success; they aren't "skeptics" who want to throw it in the trash. Improvements on GR are likely to include GR as an approximation, as Newtonian mechanics is an approximation to GR.

Relativity is the current best idea we have to explain a lot of things and works to within experimental uncertainty for all tests of it performed so far. This article should reflect that success instead of embarking on a misguided ideological quest to discredit it in favor of Newtonian mechanics, which is known to have limits. And what I've said applies to GR; SR is even more established. Aschlafly, your problem with relativity appears to be that it is called "relativity" which you believe allows it to somehow be associated with moral relativism. Would your objections still hold if it were named "Reference Frame Theory"? Please remove the skeptical claims, as their inclusion implies willful ignorance to anyone who visits this page.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:37, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, we're factual on this site. Exaggerations about the theory of relativity or anything else are not allowed here. For example, one editor here claimed that relativity predicts the bending of light but that Newtonian mechanics does not. That is false. Some of the claims here about GPS using relativity have also been false. This isn't allowed in a credible encyclopedia. Go to Wikipedia if you want to stretch or distort the truth to suit your personal views about what the facts should be. Here we state what the facts are.

: Similarly, we don't delete or censor factual scientific information here. You recently deleted factual information without justification, and your deletion has been reverted. Please abide by our [[rules]]. Thank you and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:21, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Andy, I don't get the point of your edits. Under Ostensible Paradoxes, you have a 2001 article that says "If confirmed, the finding could mean ...". That was 6 years ago. Was it confirmed, or not? The following results are somewhat interesting, but obscure. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:14, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

== Nasa on spacecraft and relativity ==

Three of the items found with a quick search:
* Cassini refines measurements of general relativity with its trip around the sun [http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm]
* Voyager 1's slingshot around Saturn showed frequency shifts in agreement with relativity [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html]
* Gravity Probe B is a satellite launched and demonstrates frame dragging and geodetic warping of space [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html][http://einstein.stanford.edu/]
Given these examples, I believe the passage recently added:
:In addition to GPS discussed above, NASA has launched numerous space probes and missions, but none of them have ever used the theory of relativity in their timing mechanisms even though they experience much weaker gravitational fields in space.
is inappropriate and misleading. Even if the space craft where not ''designed'' with relativity in mind (the Gravity Probe B certainly was designed with it in mind), Voyager and Cassini and others demonstrated the effects of relativity as they dipped into gravity wells and out of them with the frequency of the signal being sent to Earth. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 12:47, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:: The current statement is correct in the entry and we do not delete correct, educational information here. You cite some interesting articles which could also be added if they are given detail and explanation suitable for a high-quality encyclopedia. I took a quick look at your articles and they seem to be designed for public consumption, lacking satisfactory detail of a scientific level. But feel free to add a paragraph '''without exaggeration''' that explains clearly what you think these experiments demonstrate. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The [[libera]] edits and censorship have been reverted. This is not [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 17 December 2007 (EST)

I'm not trying to be liberal or censor, but I doubt anyone thought any less of Dicke due to his support of Brans-Dicke - which is merely the addition of a scalar field to the tensor of GR - in fact, all of einsteinan GR is viable under Brans-Dicke - if the scalar field is set to null - the difference is the allowable effect of long-distance large masses that is not rsquared. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 15:16, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:Um... this is supposed to be targetted towards high school students. Your really doing nothing but babbling to me, because I don't understand what you're talking about. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 20:04, 17 December 2007 (EST)

I made a change that was first related. Even by the methods that science uses to deny christian beliefs they both fail. Putting it that way is a little stronger, as well as more accurate. It's kind of hard to say that "string theory" has been a failure when just about every physicist who wants to work these days needs to learn and be productive in it. It's just entirely "thought experiments" though, and quirking math to make it fit. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 20:02, 17 December 2007 (EST)

If this article is directed at high school students, Dicke would not be mentioned, as his contribution to the theory of relativity was limited. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 09:11, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:His importance to this article for Conservapedia is that he believed in something other than General Relativity, and although very intelligent, never received a Nobel Prize for any of his findings. The point being made is that if you disagree with GR, that you won't get a Nobel Prize. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:13, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Why you would disagree with GR is beyond me, but… --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 14:16, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Whether or not I disagree with GR is irrelevant. This wiki has a goal and purpose, and you need speak toward that audience. The intention of this article is to question and critique GR, not to assume that it is automatically true. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:21, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::You realize that what [[User:PhysicsNut|PhysicsNut]] was explaining - as I understood it - was that Dicke ''didn't'' really believe in something other than General Relativity? All that "babbling" was describing why Brans-Dicke theory differs little from GR (PhysicsNut, feel free to correct me on this). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:19, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::: That's correct. Brans-Dicke with Omega approaching infinity is General Relativity per Einstein. At no point did Dicke doubt that matter bent space-time. He merely postulated that there was another effect of matter that was not an r-squared effect. He didn't win the Nobel because someone else heard the CBR first - Dicke was just the one who realized it was proof-positive of the Big Bang. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 16:44, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::: It's bias to insist on describing theories that compete with relativity in terms of relativity. Also, the explanation for why Dicke, one of the finest physicists of the 20th century responsible for ''multiple breakthroughs'', did not win a [[Nobel Prize]] is not as plausible as the reason given.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Says who? Don't we need "authoritive sources for all the changes you want to make," or is your insinuation that Professor Dicke (who proved the Big Bang as his most notable breakthrough) was a young-earth creationist enough? [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 20:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)

This article is an embarrassment. Whatever - this project is obviously doomed. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 21:05, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Your attitude is completely unhelpful. You should not continue to post. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:21, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Maybe so, Puellanivis, but still, try not to write off editors so quickly! [[User:Physicsnut|Phyiscsnut]] is only new here, and may not have understood how [[Conservapedia]] differs from [[Wikipedia]] or other [[MSM]] outlets. Many editors have moved beyond initial misunderstandings to find ways to contribute positively to Conservapedia, despite ideological differences - so you needn't necessarily drive them off right away. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:06, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::: I don't why there are so many edits to the content page here, and I'll have to sort through them again. Relativity is a magnet for [[liberal bias]], but we're not going to allow such bias here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:21, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::Feebasfactor, your point is very well received. I definitely agree with your point. But people will not get anywhere without discussing and considering. If they express an attitude that this site will never be helpful if it rejects their viewpoint, then that's just silly. Aschlafly, I believe I had cleared it up fairly well with my last revert, but please feel free to review it. I think it attracts so much liberal bias, because they feel like it's home turf, or something, and get mad when anyone insults it. I suppose it's kind of the same thing as the liberals insulting the Bible. It just evokes such a strong response, that liberals get stupid (more so) and don't stop think and consider. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 00:27, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::: Insult relativity all you want. Insult the memory of Robert Dicke and you can rot. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 20:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Physicsnut, you're making no sense. Please don't pollute our pages with namecalling nonsense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:11, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Nobel Prize Contradiction ==

In the beginning of the section Evidence for Relativity you state that, "There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity." This is part of your reasoning as to why GR is not scientifically viable, yet in the section Philosophical Impact of Relativity you state that Robert Dicke is still a an accomplished physician despite his never being awarded any Nobel Prizes. Now it seems to me that if you wish to still credit Robert Dicke as an accomplished physician, which is certainly true, then it would seem only fair to leave out the comment about GR never gaining Nobel recognition. At least not in the context of trying to discredit it. You can't have it both ways. Either it's possible to be reliable and not gain Nobel recognition, or not gaining Nobel recognition speaks to the validity of the subject. One or the other; can't be both. --[[User:Aralith|Aralith]]

: Your logic is defective, because Robert Dicke (physicist, not a physician) was slighted due to bias ''in favor of the theory of relativity''. That bias obviously does not explain the lack of Nobel Prizes for relativity. It's the lack of evidence that is the reason there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:: If the Theory of Relativity is so commonly accepted among physicists (meant to write that in the last post but the wrong word came out of my fingers) how could it be that the Theory of Relativity hasn't gained Nobel recognition, which is voted on by a commitee made up of the same scientists who support said theory unless it is possible for a subject (person, theory, etc.) to be extremely important but not Nobel Prize worthy? In which case it makes perfect logical sense that both Dicke and GR could be a great person/theory respectively but not gain recognition from the Nobel committee.

== legal right to abortion ==

"For example, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama helped publish an article by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to abortion.[39]"

Unfortunately there is no link to the article in question. It would interest me much what the right to abortion has to do with the alleged curvature of space. Either the space is curved, or it isn't. Neither of both could ever affect my moral convictions.

{{unsigned|Harald}}

:This entire section is ridiculous and irrelevant. Clearly the curvature of spacetime was being referred to as a metaphor. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]]

::Please rewrite the section and/or move text to other articles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Where is the reference to Obama helping publish the article? The current reference points to the JSTOR article abstract, which does not mention Obama's involvement whatsoever. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 15:33, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

== Paradoxes? Nobel Prize? ==

Why are these things labeled as paradoxes? The rule is the speed of light IN A VACUUM is constant WITH RESPECT TO INERTIAL FRAME. The variability of c (the speed of light) through a medium is accepted and irrelevant as far as SR is concerned. That is due to the absorption and reemission of photons by atoms as light hits travels through glass (or air or fiber optics cable). Similarly, relativity neither prohibits nor "encourages" a c that varies with the age of the universe. Indeed, the nature of the constant is still a mystery, and it may indeed be dependent on some factors we are unaware of.

If anyone is confused, shoot me an email and I'll either give you a full explanation or point you in the direction of a good resource.

Also, there are several reasons Einstein never received a Nobel Prize for relativity:

-he recieved a prize for the photoelectric effect,which has laid the framework for quantum mechanics (arguably just as important). They may have had qualms over giving two to the same person (they haven't done it yet).

-initially, there was some resistance against it by the old guard of physicists who had wasted their lives pursuing the alternative (and stupid) ether explanation for the nature of c.

-the Nobel committee favors ideas that have practical applications (hence no prize for mathematics), and at the time relativity had none.

-as to why they haven't given him one recently...well, Einstein's dead, and they don't give prizes posthumously. (A sticking point, since the full significance of a theory might only be fully realized generations after its inception).

So saying the Nobel prize hasn't recognized Einstein for relativity is misleading and irrelevant.

And now I'm curious. This article seems to have an anti-relativity bias. Why is relativity unAmerican or unChristian (besides the fact that Einstein was a German Jew)?

And what's up with the Obama reference? I don't think God asks politicians (liberal or conservative) for their opinions when he establishes His natural law. (unsigned by User:QED)

:I looked at your edits for this and found them to be wanting. The information on the Nobel committee is accurate. It's a small part of the article and no specific conclusions are stated from it. I can see why you would believe this is not a slight on relatively, nevertheless it is true as written. In the absense of any counter evidence, such as writings by the Nobel committee explaining this, it should be allowed to stand. Your other point is, temporarily, out of bounds. You may believe that relativity allows for faster than light movement 'virtually', but unless you have a source, it's not going to be included. In other words your conjecture is not going to trump a source that appears to take a neutral position.

:Lastly, do not try to play the minority card again. You aren't Johnny Cochran. The article on Einstein is extensive and written with great respect. I'm assuming you could already have checked it up to see the view on him at CP. Consider this to be your one and only warning in this area. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:38, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:: User: Learn together's analysis is superb. The polemic comments above by QED seem to have little relation to the actual entry here, or to science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

== Questions ==

The introduction refers to "a principle which led to the first theory", but as far as I can see, there's no further reference to or explanation of this. What is this referring to?

It's been asked a couple of times above, but not answered as far as I can see: What relevance does Obama's comment have in this article?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:54, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: The reference to "principle" should be to postulates. That's been fixed. The reference to Obama is explained enough, don't you think? It describes political support for the theory, and use (or misuse) of it for political gain.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:45, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
:: It hasn't been explained on this talk page at all. Harald asked the question above, Kristkrispies added a criticism, and the only reply was from Ed Poor suggesting the section be rewritten. QED asked about it also, and the reply didn't address that point.
:: However, rereading the footnote (or did I miss that before?), I can see a very tenuous connection, but not one that warrants it being included in this article. I suggest it be removed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:44, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, I'm assuming you're referring to the Obama reference. The heading explains it. Political insights are a key part of this site, and explaining [[political benefit]] to something is essential to understanding why it is emphasized and/or misrepresented. The [[theory of relativity]] is used, or misused, to advance [[liberal]] goals, and the Obama reference is an important illustration of that. Would you like to see more examples?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Yes, I was referring to the Obama reference. Not, it's actually the opposite of the heading, because it is (mis)using relativity (physics) to support something political, not political support of relativity which is what the heading refers to. And as such, it's only of marginal if any real relevance to an article about relativity. I guess, though, I can see ''some'' point in it. That is, it's like an article about [[comet]]s mentioning that there was a musical group named [[The Comets]]; a bit of barely-related trivia, but the sort of thing that Wikipedia and Conservapedia sometimes do (often under the heading of "cultural references"). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

== My edits ==
I added a bit more information in the introduction to general relativity, because, as written, the article didn't really explain what the idea behind general relativity was. I don't think the edit is perfect, so people are free to tweak it or add more.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:12, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I also deleted "at infinite speed" from the sentence that said in classical physics light travels at infinite speed in a straight line. In classical physics, light still travels at c (approx 300,000 km/s), as Maxwell or any book on electrodynamics can tell you. In fact, it was this very observation that got people all caught up in the ether theory, because Maxwell's equations made direct reference to the speed of light. Consequently, people assumed that the equations had to be referring to the speed of light with respect to some fixed medium, i.e., the ether. Of course, we all know how well that theory worked out.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:21, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I removed the sentence about the Nobel prize committee not recognizing SR/GR in the evidence for SR/GR section. Mostly, the sentence just seems out of place with the rest of the section. Also, the reference provided was just a link to the Nobel committee homepage.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:49, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I removed the last section: time dilation and creation science. If we start including every crackpot scientific theory ever proposed, this page is going to become enormous.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 14:00, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:I see you are not around to respond, but including the latest creationary thinking doesn't mean that crackpot theories will be included. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== New Edits, Proposed edits ==
This article needs some major work, and I don't mind diving in and trying to correct some things. I added something on the equivalence principle because the existing information about general relativity was mostly mathematical with no physical insight. I'll try to clean up more when I have more time. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I also corrected a mistake about force defined in special relativity. The way it was written it wasn't defining a vector. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Further, I would really like to clean up the experimental evidence section, but there appears to be some contention regarding GPS, so I thought I'd discuss it with other editors here. The GPS definately DOES include some relativistic corrections. Consider the 1996 paper referenced in the article, on page 193 of the journal, page 5 of the article the authors tell us "The GPS operational control system corrects the pseudoranges measured by its monitor stations for the sum of the gravitational and velocity effects." What the article discusses is that the corrections are merely the average corrections, not the full specific velocity/gravitational effects. The article is being used misleadingly to make an unsupported claim. If no one objects in a day or two, I'll make the changes. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I'd also like to remove the stress on Dicke's theory, as Dicke's theory is basically just an extension of GR. Dicke's theory is still a metric theory of gravity involving curved space time, so most of the discussion of GR should be applicable to Dicke's theory. Dicke's theory should probably be included in another article. Also, the contention that Dicke didn't get a nobel because he proposed an alternative theory needs some supporting information or a citation or I think it should be removed. Again, if no one objects, I'll make the change. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I also plan, given time, to give a more "layman" style description of GR following my brief discussion on the equivalence principle. For students, diving straight into tensors, geodesics and field equations will most likely obscure the physics. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

== Einstein's Cross/Ring and Gravitational Lensing==
I think it'd useful to have a picture of gravitational lensing in the proof section. As I'm not an admin, I can't upload it. There's the picture found on wikipedia which is known as "Einstein's Cross," but there are plenty of other examples of gravitational lensing that can be found in the public domain: [http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/search.php?words=lens&x=0&y=0&method=and&format=normal&sort=score&config=picturealbum&restrict=entire_collection%2Fpr&exclude=]. I suggest picking a nice looking one and displaying it. I'm personally partial to the double ring found here: [http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire_collection/pr2008004a/]. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 20:43, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

: The images don't add anything new of substantive value. What's really needed here is more explanation about whether twice as much bending of light by relativity is really predicted and shown, compared to the prediction of bending of light by Newton's theory. Most people are misled to think that Newton's theory does not predict the bending of light, when it does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:53, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I tried to edit, read it over, reverted it as it wasn't making sense. However, I think there should be something about photons being able to move at speeds other than c in the bit about Newtonian lensing. My phrasing was really poor, thus the self-revert. I may take another crack at this later when I can get the words right.--[[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 21:22, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

::: The bending of light in Newtonian physics is not a trivial issue. The mass can approach zero and it still bends, for example. How much it bends is debatable, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:35, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Do you think it'd be a good idea to create a page about the bending of light under Newtonian Dynamics? Most people don't know about this and I think an explanation that's less technical than the linked source might help. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 15:07, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== Science And Math Facts That Prove Einstein's Blatant Error In His Relativity Theory ==
With all due respect, but with regard to truth in real science, my writing here is to provide undeniable mathematical and science fact that special relativity is false science.
For information this math proof was written on Wikipedia about two years ago and they squelched the truth in science by a vote of 8 to 1, and even though a supposed expert in relativity wrote that the math proofs did in fact prove relativity to be totally wrong, in the end he chose to live a lie and to squelch the truth.
In the end you can also squelch truth in real science by determining that truth by the undeniable science and math facts written here or to live according to truth. Either is your choice but squelching will only suppress science facts and true science. So I am going to write the science and math that shows undeniable truth and you can decide. [[User:StevenCrum|StevenCrum]] 16:31, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

:A section on "critiques of Einsteinian relativity" would be good. Do you remember the name of the expert? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:58, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

== More regarding the criticism of LIGO ==

As a student of physics, I feel myself almost obliged to add something to the discussion regarding LIGO, particularly as I work for a Professor that is part of the LIGO collaboration and have actually attended scientific conferences where the subject is addressed (though to be fair my work with her specifically deals with another one of her collaborations, Borexino).

First, as mentioned in previous discussion, it is indeed true that it was understood that LIGO, like many scientific undertakings, would need to be refined and calibrated before reaching its design sensitivity. To claim the LIGO is a failure before it has reached its design sensitivity is just as ridiculous and ignorant as criticizing any other tool or piece of equipment for not functioning before it is properly calibrated. It isn't like the LIGO collaboration is trying to pull any fast ones on anyone by being secretive about this - just do a Google search for LIGO to bring up their web page, where they discuss the details of this matter.

Secondly, it is true that the "success" of the experiment cannot be known prior to its being conducted, but if it could, what would be the point in conducting the experiment in the first place? Experimentation is a necessary aspect of science because scientific investigation fundamentally deals with the discovery of knowledge not previously known to us, and because it is not known to us, even its ultimate usefulness cannot be known a priori. The rate of observed events under the initial design sensitivity is predicted to be very low, so it would not be very surprising if we did not observe anything until advanced LIGO debuts. Even still, there is a fundamental uncertainty in the rate of events that will be seen. Maxwell was once asked what the usefulness of electromagnetism could ever be, to which he replied "What good is a newborn baby?" I do not believe I need to highlight the usefulness of electromagnetism in the modern world.

Which brings me to my third point, which is the enormous significance LIGO holds in terms of scientific potential. If LIGO is successful, it will revolutionize modern day astronomy by providing a new method for detecting cosmological phenomena. Gravitational radiation would offer another method of "imaging" the heavens, independent of electromagnetic radiation. To say that LIGO would have limited scientific benefit would be a serious rebuke to the field of astronomy in general. Optical astronomy would be coupled with gravitational astronomy as a valuable check on astronomical results attained by optical methods alone. But of course, the fundamental uncertainty we have as to what the observed rate of events will be reflects the fact that we do not know with complete certainty what cosmological objects exist, hence the very reason that LIGO would be useful.

Even more revolutionary would be if LIGO failed to detect gravitational waves. If you only assume the existence of a gravitational field, and that disturbances in that field cannot propagate faster than the speed of light, then by the very definition of wavelike phenomena, you have gravitational waves. Gravitational radiation is a prediction of General Relativity, and as such, were it to be disproved, it would falsify a prediction of a scientific theory. To say that this is not valuable would be to suggest that, for example, Michelson's experiments in search of the aether were not valuable, whereas in reality they gave supporting evidence to the idea that there is indeed no aether. At the very least, the experiment should be able to place certain restrictions on the rate of observed events. If gravitational radiation were not found, and this represented a serious contradiction with the rate of events predicted, it would be ABSOLUTELY ENORMOUS in terms of scientific relevance, and I cannot stress that enough. Something huge, somewhere in our understanding of the world, would have to be revised, be it the idea of the gravitational field, causality itself, etc. As a practicing scientist, I would almost hope that LIGO fails to see gravitational radiation, just because the scientific implications would be so unimaginably radical and weird, and force us to completely reexamine how we perceive the universe. But this subject could be argued until it reaches the realm of some very deep scientific philosophy - scientific theory is generally not viewed as being "completely true" or "completely wrong," but as a method of predicting physical phenomena, which eventually is replaced with a more accurate theory. Newtonian mechanics is not so much wrong, as it is not a good enough approximation in certain specific applications. If you want a metaphor, think about scientific progress as continuing to improve our Taylor expansion of the universe.

Though I suspect given the general tone of this article, somehow the death of GR would also please most of the contributors to this encyclopedia, as if General Relativity, a scientific theory, is somehow inherently a "liberal" idea. I'm sure that when Einstein formulated it, he envisioned it being used by Barack Obama to support a woman's legal right to terminate her pregnancy. Though, I hope for the sake of those contributors that General Relativity is either disproved, or is shown to be a "conservative" idea, because if it does adequately describe our universe, is a "liberal" idea, and God created the universe, then either God is a liberal, or he has a very weird sense of humo(u)r.

Just to get this nonsense out of the way now, I'm a registered independent. I vote, based on all of the relevant information I have been able to attain via what I believe to be credible sources, for whoever I honestly believe will be able to fulfill the duties of the office they seek, and I don't think anyone can ask any more of me than that. If any of this leads some of you to believe that I am incapable of discussing the theory of General Relativity, then I surely and sincerely have nothing but pity for you. --kfratus

: What are you talking about? The article has only one simple sentence about LIGO. Is that sentence correct or not? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:13, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

:: First, if you'll take a closer look at the talk page, you'll notice that there has been a good amount of discussion of the usefulness of LIGO, and that was what I was principally referencing. Secondly, the article in reality contains three sentences that in some way reference LIGO, albeit only one of them by name. The last sentence specifically mentions LIGO, the second sentence is clearly directly referencing LIGO without naming it, and the first claims that research involving the theory of relativity receives a disproportionate amount of funding. I would regard the first of those sentences as a matter of scientific opinion, which I addressed in my comments by pointing out how much impact LIGO could have on the entire astronomy community. The second and third sentences may not be incorrect, so much as they are worded as half truths. LIGO has been unsuccessful, or has failed, to detect graitational waves so far. To assert that LIGO has been unsuccessful in general would be entirely untrue, and is completely dependent on your notion of the "success" of the experiment, which I also addressed - LIGO has indeed managed to reach its target sensitivity, and whether or not they manage to detect gravitational waves, their results will still have a huge impact on the field of physics, which I would consider a successful experiment. --kfratus

:::Hopefully, when LIGO disproves so-called "[http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=gravity+waves gravity waves]", a relativist working on the project will be honest enough to call LIGO what it is. In this way, LIGO may end up being a very, very expensive way of '''disproving''' relativity, once and for all.
:::I doubt it, though, with all that grant money on the line. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 23:35, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: Maybe it is unfair to say that LIGO has been unsuccessful. But what about Gravity Probe B? That experiment seemed like a big expensive flop to me. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:26, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::I just want to make sure that the people here criticizing LIGO understand that the frequency range of the gravitational waves it was built to detect predict a variations in spacetime by only a factor of 10^-21. LIGO's longest vacuum tubes are 4km long. So physicists are attempting to measure a change in length approximately 1/2500th the diameter of an atomic nucleus.

:::::: Yes, that is why some people predicted that LIGO would fail. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

And to the poster who linked to youtube video of "gravity waves". Those ARE NOT gravity waves. Those are clouds.

:::::::As a passer-by stumbling upon your conversation, I never really meant to end up leaving this many posts, and I apologize if I'm violating your 90/10 rule, or anything like that. But I just wanted to clarify something that I see come up very often. I frequently run into people who have this impression that all scientists are members of some secret organization that is trying to hold knowledge from the public, and that they have their own personal reasons for trying to manipulate the body of scientific knowledge. While I cannot speak for all scientists, any of the ones that I have ever met (myself included), would be absolutely more than happy to welcome more people to our field of study. Most physicists I have met enjoy what they do, and would be very willing to pass their knowledge onto others (and one would have to admit that if we were somehow manipulating the entire body of public knowledge, we'd have to be doing a pretty good job of keeping every single scientist in the entire world quiet about the real truth - not very practical). And with respect to the comments made by BHarlan, I can assure you that most scientists would actually LOVE to disprove general relativity. In many cases, scientists are not famous because they confirm the prediction of a theory, but because they disprove one, thereby radically changing what we know about the world around us. The reason Einstein was so famous was because he disproved the Newtonian picture of the universe, not because he confirmed some prediction of it. But this is just like any other profession - think about it, if a rival of yours was successful in some way, wouldn't you be just dieing to somehow prove them wrong and rub it in their face? Scientists are people too, subject to the same personality traits as everyone else. This is why most physicists feel relatively comfortable with the scientific process - they know that if something is proposed as a theory, there will be a thousand people just itching to prove it wrong, thereby stealing the limelight for themselves. I think that if I ever found a way to disprove relativity, I'd practically have a heart attack out of excitement (and you can be sure I'd get a Nobel prize for it, too). In fact, it is already a well known fact that GR must be wrong at at least some level, because as it is formulated now, it's not compatible with some of the basic tenets of quantum mechanics. Though, I'm still pretty sure we'll see gravity waves, if you want my opinion. Gravity waves are predicted by ideas much more fundamental than GR (aka, the finite speed of light), and so GR could be be wrong, and we could still have gravity waves - as long as you define the propagating influence of gravity as a "wave," and assume that information can't travel faster than the speed of light, then there you have it, really. And with respect to the video of the clouds, those are actually "gravity waves," but of a different sort. The term comes from how the Earth's gravitational field effects atmospheric conditions. So it is the same term for two very different things, which unfortunately may lead to some confusion for some people. And with respect to Gravity Probe B, I admit that I do not know as much about that experiment, and off the top of my head would not really be able to debate it. Though if I remember correctly its data analysis is scheduled to continue into 2010, so I would hesitate to say anything until then (other than the fact that in principle, I find its goals fairly relevant - if you really wanted to test the geometrical nature of GR, you should try to confirm/disprove one of its craziest, most non-intuitive predictions - aka, frame-dragging).

:::::::But I can assure you, I have met plenty of people who are very politically conservative, and believe in gravity waves. In fact, many deeply spiritual people believe that relativity is a sign of God's existence. The basic idea goes that if relativity were not true, there would have to be some preferred reference frame, which would have to be chosen somewhat arbitrarily. But how could a divine creator just make some arbitrary choice like that? Not very elegant, if you ask me. In fact, I have heard that some people actually cry when they finally understand GR, because of what an elegant theory it is. If you want to read more about ideas like that, I definitely suggest Brian Greene's book, "Fabric of the Cosmos." If you want my honest opinion, I have yet to come across anything in my study of physics that I believe is a serious threat to the existence of some intelligent creator. From what I can gather, most physicists don't even concern themselves with such an aim - if God exists, then he exists. Our goal is to study what we can see, and make useful predictions based on that. If it's all just a result of God, then so be it. The only result will be that we've come to know Him a little better through out study of the universe and its workings. --kfratus

:::::::: The article hardly says anything about gravity waves. Are you suggesting some change to the article? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:00, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

== General Questions ==

The article suggests that Newtonian physics somehow suggest the bending of light, which is impossible according to Newtonian physics. Since a photon has zero mass, it cannot be bent by the force as described by Newton.

* Huh? I thought it was Newton who '''discovered''' the bending of light, which occurs as light enters a [[prism]]. It is because the various frequencies of light bend by different amounts that we get the [[rainbox]] effect (see [[spectrum]]). Or I have I totally forgotten my [[high-school physics]] and [[history of science]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Next point, Newton's action-at-a-distance theory of gravity seems to be taken as fact. The idea that general relativity violates this is used as a point against it. Newton himself stated, and I quote:

"It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the
mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and
affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must do, if gravitation,
...., be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason, why I
desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should
be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act
upon another, at a distance through vacuum, without the mediation of
anything else, by and through their action and force may be conveyed
from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no
man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking,
can ever fall into it."

Therefor, even the founder of classical mechanics saw action-at-a-distance as problem, so how is it in any way evidence to contradict a well tested theory?

: Oh, ignoring phenomena such as quantum entanglement, are we? --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 22:57, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
:: Actually, no. The reason that a grand unified theory is necessary is because of the discrepancies of the quantum world and the macro world. Both have been tested, neither conclusively, but evidence is in their favor. All I am saying here is that you can't use this (logically) as a point to disqualify an entire theory. Especially when you use this point when referencing a person (Newton) who had a problem with it.

::: Kindly use the signature button (10th from the left above) to "sign" your comments, so we can tell who's saying what.

::: Newton assumed nothing; he "feigned no hypotheses." Accordingly, he didn't have "a problem with it." It was his peers who could not accept it. Newton's quote above does not question "action at a distance," but is commenting on the nature of matter.

::: Many still refuse to accept action at a distance (and non-locality), as your own viewpoints demonstrate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
:::: Still refuse? As one of your relatives pointed out, there is some support for it, such as quantum entanglement, but on a large scale (say larger than the what is it now, 1 km?) past where quantum entanglement has been proven, there is no proof or any proof to suggest it should be true. And, I'm sorry, but I have to say. Don't assign my viewpoints to me sir. I will decide what I think based on fact. What I form as opinion, I will state as such. I don't understand how people can read this article with any knowledge of physics and agree with it. None of my professors, mentors, or scientists that I have met would support such statements. The fact that you are doing so proves the disgusting and twisted lengths that some people will go to in order to make established fact comply with their own super-conservative beliefs. It is people like yourselves that are ruining the republican party and make me scared for the future of America.--[[User:RobertSJ|RobertSJ]] 23:22, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

::::: So even though non-locality and action at a distance have been fully proven in laboratory experiments, you claim "there is no proof or any proof to suggest it should be true" ''beyond a certain distance''. Surely you don't think there is one set of laws for less than an arbitrary distance, and another set of laws for larger than an arbitrary distance. No, the real problem here is that some people, perhaps including yourself, do not and will not accept action at a distance regardless of the proof.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Next point, several "obscure physicists" is not the same as almost the entire community of physicists (which is the actual truth here.) Gravitational redshift perfectly explains the way that signals between earth and GPS satellites are different in time. That is how current GPS positions are calculated.

You mention LIGO at the very end and gravity waves as well. There is no prior mention. The prior mentions should explain what gravity waves are, why they are so weak, why they can probably only be detected from very massive binary systems, and why even when these massive binary systems are found the radiation should be so weak that the immense precision of LIGO and LISA are required.

Just some points on things that are not accurate or need to be clarified in order to not leave the reader with a false interpretation of scientific fact.

:Also edit, I am a physics major attending a well-respected and also conservative school (Vanderbilt). I have conducted research in physics at a national lab (ORNL), and like to keep up on this kind of thing. I am a moderate but conservative leaning voter.--[[User:RobertSJ|RobertSJ]] 23:22, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I responded in greater detail above, but let me just add that not everything you've learned is true, and not everything your professors state is true either. Hopefully you'll admit at least that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

: Photons have zero rest mass, but they are not at rest. A reference is given for the deflection of light as predicted by relativity theory. So the article seems to be correct about the bending of light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:41, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

::I wish that critics of CP would help us write [[basic physics]] articles instead of trying to "prove us wrong". Please help me finish the "[[bending of light]]" article, in accordance with what we all agree about Newton's discoveries many decades ago. Then we can discuss how to present [[quantum physics]], okay? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:04, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

== Non-Locality and Quantum Field Theory ==

There is no action at a distance, nor non-locality, in quantum mechanics nor field theory. None. You're confusing two different subjects.

First, action at a distance: True, in Newton's gravity, there is action at a distance. But this is totally different from anything to be found in QM or field theory, which have no action at a distance. All Hamiltonians in the standard models of field theory (QED, electroweak, QCD) are strictly local Hamiltonians. Forces are exerted by passing virtual bosons back and forth in space, like footballs. Interactions (like electron/photon, then photon/electron) are all 100% local.

The fact that Newton's theory assumed action at a distance (without proof) does not mean that ALL theories require action at a distance. Why should that follow? Why should modern theories be limited by Newton's unproved assumptions? Quantum field theory is immensely more accurate, measured objectively, than Newton's gravity force ever was. QED (with special relativity built in) predicted the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron accurate to one part in a TRILLION. Newton's theory was never even close to that level of accuracy! Newton could never accurately compute the orbit of Mercury or gravitational lensing to one part in a trillion! Or billion. By objective criteria, field theory is more accurate than Newton.

Second, non-locality: non-locality is not the same as action at a distance. Action at a distance requires exertion of a FORCE. Nothing in QM is in fact non-local. The only thing non-local about QM is the Copenhagen interpretation of wavefunction collapse, which is not a part of the equations, but a way of visualizing the effect of observation a QM system.

You have mentioned quantum entanglement as a supposed example of non-locality. Entanglement, and phenomena like quantum teleportation, do not exert FORCES, so they are not actiona at a distance! Further, quantum entanglement can never be used to transmit information faster than the speed of light. Hence, there's no contradiction between QM and SR. Field theory has SR built in. There is no experiment, in quantum teleportation nor EPR paradox, Bell's inequality etc., that can possibly transmit information FTL. Describe one experiment, just one entanglement experiment, that can supposedly transmit info FTL. I dare you. Just one.

So what is this supposed "non-locality" then? The Copenhagen interpretation of QM says that the wavefunction should "collapse" (revert to a single eigenfunction) everywhere simultaneously when an observation is made. If this really happened, it would be a problem for SR, because in SR, simultaneity is relative to the observer. But, two problems. First, this supposed "collapse" can never be observed and can never be used to transmit info FTL. Second, the Copenhagen interpretation is deeply flawed because it never defined what an "observation" was. It is no longer the most popular interpretation; among physicists, the Many Worlds interpretation is more popular now, because it precisely defines what observation means, in terms of quantum decoherence, so MWI connects better to macroscopic thermodynamics.

If you want to (groan) argue the point, you can argue that Copenhagen and Many Worlds are both non-local, but so what? They're visualizations, not equations, and certainly not forces, nor "actions"!! When neither visualization scheme can be used to transmit info FTL, nor exert a force, this is no problem for SR at all!

The only big problem here is that field theory is incompatible with GR, not SR. True. Everybody knows this is the biggest problem in physics. No one knows whether the flaw is in GR, field theory, or both. However, either way, there is no problem between field theory and SR. Field theory has SR built in, and is (objectively measured) the most precise scientific theory in history. If you argue this, I'll swamp you with experimental proofs. [[User:Cuddlytakun|Cuddlytakun]] 15:53, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

:"Cuddlytakun", you've obviously made up your mind that [[action at a distance]] and [[non-locality]] must not exist. But all evidence is against your view. Would you support spending another billion dollars of taxpayer money looking for [[gravitons]] to support your view? I hope not.

:How about this: raise ''private'' capital for searching for gravitons to support your philosophy. Then we'll see how many really agree with you, rather than just going along for the ride.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:10, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

Au contrere mon frere, you made up your mind that action at a distance is the only type force possible. I have nowhere said action at a distance is impossible. I've said Newton never proved, could not prove, it was the ONLY possibility. I suppose it's possible for both to exist. In field theory this would mean a Hamiltonian that is part local and part non-local. Sometimes the idea is kicked around. Mathematically, non-local Hamiltonians are a pain in the ass to compute with, and counterintuitive, but theoretically possible.

Why have you decided that action at a distance is the only possibility? Just because Newton's theory assumed it without proof, this does not mean all forces in nature must likewise be action at a distance. Think about this: suppose you and I are ice-skating. I toss you a football. When I throw the ball, reaction force pushes me backward. When you catch it, the collision pushes you away from me. Basic repulsive force at a distance, composed of local pairwise interactions. All forces in the standard model (electrodynamic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear; that is electroweak and QCD) work that way. The footballs are virtual bosons of spin 1.

"All evidence is against your view"? What evidence? What are you talking about!? "Your view"? Hell of a dismissive thing to say. It's not "my view", it's the view of everybody in physics, including Weinberg and Wilczek. Do you even know the meaning of the quotes you lifted out of Wilczek and Weinberg's speeches!? Seriously, do you have any evidence in mind, any at all, or are you just blowing smoke?

So you drag funding issues into it. As you know, the Europeans paid for the Large Hadron Collider so all the geniuses are moving to Europe. The last smart person to leave America, please turn out the lights.

But don't dismiss field theory as "philosophy". You're playing word games because you can't back up your statements with facts. These are facts: with field theory, you can predict the experimental value of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron to one part in a trillion. Of the muon, to one part in a billion. You can compute the mass of protons and neutrons and mesons from first principles, a priori! Which is an inherently relativistic computation (m = E/c2, with E from local QCD.) The Z boson's existence and mass were predicted before its discovery via electroweak theory, which is an entirely local Hamiltonian. Newton's gravity could never compute anything to an accuracy of one part in a billion, or compute masses of particles a priori, or predict new particles before they're observed! Why do you call field theory philosophy, but Newton's theory is science? Explain the definition of "philosophy" you're using here. Word games!
[[User:Cuddlytakun|Cuddlytakun]] 23:55, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

: Your "word-to-substance ratio" is very high; you are likely a [[liberal]]. See point 2 in [[liberal style]].

:I beg you to open your mind and learn here, for your own sake. Look at how you refused to address my simple point. Instead you cling to your perception of what you think others believe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

== Proof ==

The proofs for relativity are both mathematical and physical, yet this article tries to say otherwise. If someone doesn't know them then can I please put them in without them being edited out within minutes?

--[[User:Unlikelyconvert|Unlikelyconvert]] 13:14, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

: You're not going to push anything that is false here. Make your very best edit first and let's see how that looks, before you spend a lot of time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:20, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

I haven't tried to push anything, I've made a few edits already, corrected a couple of scientific mistakes, and said this. Can you please open your mind for just 10 minutes and look at both sides of this debate? Look at the overwhelming consensus on relativity, and then I will look at any source you give me forwarding your viewpoint. As I've said in another talk page, I am willing to change my views if you can prove them.
--[[User:Unlikelyconvert|Unlikelyconvert]] 13:27, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

: My mind is open, and I've invited you to make your very best edit first. Or, alternatively, state it here. Keep your word-to-substance ratio low, however. See [[liberal style]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:30, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Looking above, many people have stated the mathematical proofs in their different forms, yet you dismissed most of them almost out of hand. And I am not a liberal in respect to your definition, I am the (in my experience) the more common kind, the kind who will accept evidence. And you don't seem that open minded, as when i offered to put in proofs you started by saying I was trying to spread falsehoods. Proof makes something true, not false.

--[[User:Unlikelyconvert|Unlikelyconvert]] 13:34, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

: I'm going to move on to more substantive edits. Your word-to-substance ratio has been very high.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

::I'm going to ban uc if he doesn't stop trying to make people change their minds. If he wants to provide information about a novel, unproven or untested theory he's welcome to do that. He can even write about a theory which we conservatives know is false, provided that he doesn't try to present it as '''valid'''.

::Our policy is to label advocacy as such. Say, for example, that Professor X asserts theory Y because of Z. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:22, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-06-16T01:19:31Z

Lemonpeel: /* "Beautiful, but not robust" Quote */

== "Beautiful, but not robust" Quote ==

The beginning of this article provides a quote from Steven Weinberg on quantum field theory saying that QFT is "beautiful, but not robust." The way the quote is given here makes it sound like this comment was intended as a criticism of QFT. I looked up the source of the quote, and it appears (to me at least) that the quote was not meant as a criticism at all. I think what Weinberg was saying is that QFT has to satisfy a lot of strong properties, such as gauge invariance and renormalizeablility. It is in that sense that QFT is not robust. But the point I think Weinberg is making is that this gives us hope for finding a grand unified theory, since we don't have much wiggle room in the kinds of theories we can propose.

Given that, I propose the quote be removed, since its likely meaning is out of context with the way the quote is being used. --[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:00, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

:The quote speaks for itself, and your comment is unfortunately incoherent. A lack of robustness in a theory is obviously a weakness in the theory, not in the requirements for the theory. No, we're not going to censor the quote.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:51, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Well, clearly the quote does not speak for itself, since it comes at the end of a long lecture praising the progress that has been made in QFT. As far as lack of robustness being a weakness--it seems like this is the exact opposite point Weinberg is trying to make. He discusses, for example, how pleased he was when people discovered the need for theories to be renormalizeable. His point was that this was a hard condition for a theory to satisfy, and therefore imposing that condition greatly narrowed the search for the correct theory. I hope that clarifies the point I was trying to make. --[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 21:19, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

== Mass Increase Section ==

In the subsection on mass increase, it is claimed that the abandonment of the relativistic mass point of view "undermines" the famous equation <math>E=mc^2</math>. I find this statement rather odd. After all, the broader principle underlying this equation is that if <math>p</math> is the 4-momentum vector of a particle, then the magnitude of <math>p</math> is the same in all inertial reference frames and equal (in units where c = 1) to the rest mass of the particle. This remains true regardless of whether one uses the language of relativistic mass or not. As currently written, this subsection is liable to confuse anyone who is unfamiliar with the subject.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 20:41, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

: Go ahead and fix it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:27, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

:Done.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 13:37, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

== Great article ==

1) Superb avoidance of difficult science in a scientific article. Best not to be confusing.
2) Nice attention on Eddington rather than the theory itself.
3) Good mind reading regarding Eddington's dreams.
4) Nice work ignoring the facts about things that have been inventing using GR such as GPS

And rather than simply be sarcastic, I will work on a better article over the weekend. One that actually discusses the science.

== Special and general relativity ==

This article seems to combine the two. They are different ideas and need to be distinguished. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:21, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Agreed. Separate articles would make more sense. I don't have time to do the necessary work right now, but if no one else does it I'm sure I'll get to it eventually. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:11, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:If someone will split the pages, I'll help flesh them out.--[[User:ZLewis|ZLewis]] 10:42, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Moral Relativism line needs to go. ==

I have never heard anyone advocating moral relativism use either of the theories of relativity to do it. Actually, the only people who I've ever heard that from are relativity deniers like Fred Hutchison. Not only does that show a grave misunderstanding of the scientific theory, but also a misunderstanding of the phrase "moral relativism". In any case, you can't draw moral implications from scientific theories. When someone says that Einstein's theory of relativity implies some kind of moral relativism, they're really saying "The geometric theory of gravity allows me to internalize my moral decisions".

That line is ridiculous and irrelevant, and needs to disappear.

:I don't like it ''at all'' in its present form, but the word "relativity" is thrown around casually ''quite a lot'' and there might be justification for a section with a title like "what relativity is not."

:E.g. [http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/06/relativity.html Scott Adams], author of the Dilbert comic strip, says "Einstein’s great insight was assuming reality was not fixed, and that everything was relative to the observer" and goes on to say "I have extended that thinking to people..."

::I think using Scott Adams as a reference or a jumping-off point for discussion really constitutes holding one's self to a dismally low standard. He's posted his own theories of physics to his blog a few times, freely admitting that he knows they're wrong and that he just takes pride in the fact that the layman can't successfully challenge them. In all honesty, moral relativism is a perfectly valid subject for an article, but it doesn't have anything to do with physics other than an unfortunate overlap of words and definitions in English. Putting this section in just makes the authors look like they're bristling for a fight. [[User:Willforpresident|Willforpresident]] 21:25, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:What follows is interesting if not very profound, but dragging Einstein into it is not helpful.

:It just goes to show the value of jargon. When scientists give something a simple name like "relativity," people assume they understand it and misapply it. I'm just thankful that people aren't very familiar with mathematics or we'd be hearding about crop circles in Galois fields. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:50, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::I like the "what relativity is not" idea. Might be worth pointing out that relativity in physics didn't start with SR; there is such a thing as Galilean relativity, after all. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:57, 25 February 2007 (EST)

This line must go. It is not relevant to the article. Have a disambiguation page for relativity. The citation is completely incorrect. The website http://www.moralrelativity.com/about1.html says nothing about general relativity influencing moral relativity. This article says 'Relativity has generated a huge following by advocates of moral relativism,' but the website http://www.moralrelativity.com/about1.html does not make any mention of this statement, therefore it is improperly cited. Citations are supposed to support claims, and this one does not. (Read the website for yourself). Also, just because relativity is a homophone in this case doesn't mean it belongs in an article of the (general) theory of relativity. ''Please make a disambiguation page'' because this is clearly in the wrong place.

I removed the moral relativity part from this article and placed it in a new article called [[Moral relativity]]. Relativity here is clearly just a homophone, and moral relativity is irrelevant to special or general relativity. To illustrate my point, see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativity. Relativity in physics has a special meaning. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 00:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, moral relativism is a big reason for the political support of types of relativity. It's obviously relevant to this article, and the above criticism only reinforces the need to include a reference. We can debate how to say it, but censorship is not an option here. Go to Wikipedia for that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, then that can go into the [[Moral relativity]] article, which now exists. There is no support for your claim. Neither is there a need for political support for a scientific theory. The way you describe it, moral relativity references this theory of relativity, not the other way around. The theory of relativity neither relies on moral relativity in any explanation of it or needs it to be mentioned for a complete treatment of the theory, and therefore it is inappropriate to add it here. I direct you again to the dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativity in order to clarify that relativity in this sense has specific meaning in the domain of physics, and arbritrary theories that share the word are not in this domain nor are related in any concrete way, simply being homophones. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 18:40, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Someone added more about the moral relativity bit, so I put it in the right place: in the article on [[Moral relativity]]. The section says, "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views," which is about moral relavitity and how they use the theory of relativity, not how the the theory of relativity involves moral relativity. I challenge the writer again to find a work on the physics theory that metions moral relativity at all. Just because a page mentions the theory of relativity does not make it a legitimate part of the theory itself, and as such, does not belong in this article. If anything, the [[Moral relativity]] article should make a link to this article, not the other way around. I am not sure the agenda here, but it seems that someone would like to promote moral relativity by attaching it to unrelated articles. Please add your information to the correct article in the correct place. Again, here is the link: [[Moral relativity]]. Go crazy. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

ASchlafly, you added the line "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views" and gave a citation afterwards. If you read the page that you cite, you will see that the author merely uses Special Relativity to demonstrate how moral relativism works. He does not "seize" on the theory and does not use it to "legitimize" his view. Can you find a better source please? (or remove the sentence)

: I can't tell who or when this comment was made, because it lacks the signature (use the signature button above). But I will look for more sites about to support my statement, which should be easy to find. Frankly, I've never heard anyone doubt the statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps you've been listening the wrong people. No reputable explanations of relativity mention moral relativity. Find a reputable one. Don't look for moral relativity explanations that include physics relativity, because that information belongs in [[Moral relativity]], not here. You are researching the wrong topic. Repeat: look for information about the physical theory of relativity and see if you can find one that mentions moral relativity (not pages that talk about moral relativity and mention physical relativity). Furthermore, anyone can set up a web page and say whatever they want, so web pages are generally not a very good resource (unless it's the physics department website at MIT, for instance, because it has credibility in this field). You should find reputable scientific texts. And, please, stick the topic at hand: physical science topics needs physical science resources. There is ample room in the [[Moral relativity]] article to discuss. In fact, I'm surprised you aren't contributing more to that article (especially compared to how much you try add to in this article), since you seem to be very interested in the topic and are more knowledgable about it than physical relativity. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I've received no response. Can I remove the paragraph now? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 16:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::By the way, I checked the history, and MatteeNeutra made the uncited statement above about needing a better source or removing the sentence. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 17:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== <math>e=mc^2</math> not "attributed" to Einstein. ==

<math>e=mc^2</math> isn't just "attributed" to Einstein. When someone says "attributed", they typically mean that someone is given credit for an idea somewhat apocryphally. Einstein obtained the relation in his Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper, in which, from the Lorentz transformations, he obtained the relations:

<math>E = \sqrt{c^4m^2+p^2c^2}</math>
and then, as <math>p\to0</math>:

<math>E=mc^2</math>.

And these bizarre polemics are undermining what little credibility this encyclopedia has. Sneering at Einstein and glorifying the contributions of Ponicare makes all of the sense of arguing over whether Leibniz or Newton invented calculus, particularly since there are very palpable differences between Einstein and Ponicare's treatments of the subjects. And, I see someone has removed the "there is no evidence for the general theory", but I'm sure it will be back by this afternoon. That's ever weirder -- how on earth can someone say that "there is no evidence" and then, in the same article, link to black holes?

I'm not going to go back to that article on [[Dirac Notation]] to fill up all of those links with articles until I'm sure one of the administrators isn't going to replace them with accusations of quantum mechanics being tantamount to the Kabbalah, or something equally stupid. (unsigned)

: It is a fact that Poincare published E=mc2 and most of the rest of special relativity before Einstein. Maybe you think that this is sneering or glorifying, but it is a fact, and there is no serious dispute about it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:17, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: This is true, but what Poincare described was a specific case of E=mc2. An experimental result showed that there was momentum when a body ejected EM radiation, but the mass was unaccounted for. Poincare described the mass of the EM as m=E/c2. Einstein derived this formula from more fundamental assumptions, the speed of light is absolute, etc. This is why his work is so famous. In fact, in all of science, nothing belongs to any one person, even though they may get credit, but are supposedly discovered. Also do not forget that Einstein also published General Relativity.
::Furthermore, while Poincare regarded it as superfluous, scientists of the day were still trying to work with the luminescent ether. Einstein's work proved this unnecessary.
::Again this is a lesson in science. We are always trying to compress and refine our science. Einstein, while he of course drew on other's work and surely knew of Poincare's m=E/c2 paper, his work was more refined and simpler, deriving many principles, Poincare's and new ones, from a few fundamental principles. Poincare published a paper about a month before Einstein with similar work, but in science, no one person makes a discover. Don't forget, Newton has his Hooke. But like Newton, it was Einstein's derivation and formalizations that worked better. (unsigned)

::: Yes, Poincare described was a specific case of E=mc2, but so did Einstein. Einstein did not foresee particle annihilation or nuclear energy. Poincare's description of the ether as superfluous is nearly identical to Einstein's.
::: How was Einstein's work on special relativity any more refined, simpler, or better working? I deny this. Poincare showed a better understanding of the theory than Einstein. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Don't ask me, ask Lorentz. http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm

::::: OK, I looked at your link. The first thing I saw was a claim that the 1919 eclipse proved the General Relativity. We now know that eclipse proved no such thing. So much for the credibility of that link.

::::: The link does show that Lorentz and Einstein were patting each other on the back. That's fine, but it suggests a lack of objectivity towards the odd man out, Poincare. This dispute cannot be resolved by self-interested party, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Can't get much more credible than a publication by Lorentz on Gutenberg, bud. It may be dated, but it is closer to the date of Einstein's work. As far as I see you, you have the burden to prove your claim as much as everyone else has to support the opposite claim. Where is your evidence of credible sources? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 18:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Old version ==

I was just looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_Relativity&oldid=15341 an old version of this page], and the absurdity of the "scientific" claims made, combined with the low quality of the writing and blatant inaccuracies, make the article, quite frankly, almost intellectually offensive. I realize that this has since been rectified, but if this is the quality that is to be expected of Conservapedia articles, then I do not blame those who dismiss it as a failed attempt. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:12, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: be specific in your statements if you expect a response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I find the content reverted to in the above edit to be quite disturbing.

* The General Theory of Relativity does ''not'' reject Isaac Newton's "God-given" theory of gravitation, it simply provides an explanation for ''why'' it functions.

: that was obviously vandalism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* It is most certainly ''not'' a problem that the General Theory of Relativity is based upon mathematics as opposed to empirical evidence, as seems to be insinuated by this version.

: mathematics is mathematics, and unless there is empirical evidence it is not science.

::Mathematics describes physics. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* Albert Einstein's work ''did'' contribute to the development of the nuclear bomb. ''E=mc2'' describes the duality between matter and energy, the principle upon which the nuclear bomb, and all other nuclear devices, functions.

: nope. ''E=mc2'' is a statement of relativistic effect, not atomic power.

::Yes, but the mass lost in the nuclear reaction is converted to energy, which is the fundamental power of the weapon. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* "Nothing useful has even been built based on the theory of relativity." Sure, sure… nuclear power plants aren't useful at ''all'', are they? GPSs aren't useful ''at all'', are they?

: GPSs are useful, but they weren't built using General Relativity.
:: Without realativity describing gravitation redshift, the timing for the GPS satelite would be off by about 45 microseconds/day. Further reading on the matter at http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:08, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: I think Lorenzian relativity accounts for the GPS time dilation more precisely. But that isn't really my point. The GPS clocks are updated based on communications between the satellites and ground stations, not based on any theory. If you claim that GPS is built based on relativity, then you should be able to prove your case with an historical reference. No such proof exists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: That observation does not support the false claim that GPS is based on General Relativity. Other theories predict a dilation of time, and satellites are obviously synchronized based on communication, not theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::No, they have GR corrections built in. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::Can you please cite an alternate theory that accounts for the time dilation experiecned by the GPS satelites along with the math that matches that of relativity? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:17, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* "Most conservatives are skeptical since science is supposed to be about finding proof before a theory becomes a fact, not after." And ''where'' are the statistics that show this?

: Don't know who wrote that statement, but it's a correct statement of what science means.

::I was refering to the claim that "''most'' conservatives are skeptical since science…" (emphasis added) [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* Gravitons are not predicted by general relativity; much to the contrary, the two have not been reconciled.

* It is currently believed that space does indeed have curvature, what is described as "negative" curvature, giving it a saddle-like shape overall, but curvature nonetheless.

The denial of demonstrated principles because they do not coincide with your worldview is not scientific, it's purely reactionary nonsense. I'm not impressed by Examples of Bias in Wikipedia citing Wikipedians taking issue with this as a "bias". [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 16:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: OK, fine, no one is trying to impress you. The Wikipedia entry was biased and demonstrably false, as explained in [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Oh, and I mean no offense to Aschlafly. Although I do not necessarily agree with all his views, I do not wish to disparage him, and I recognize his value as a contributor. I've reconciled with him on this issue, and want to make clear that I do not mean this comment as an attack. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: I just realized that I had somehow managed to fail to see that Aschlafly's edit was a simple revert to a previous version. I don't necessarily agree with the decision, and I don't retract the points with which I take issue, but Aschlafly is not responsible for the content, and I'm sorry for insinuating that he was. I've changed some of my comment to reflect the fact that the edit was simply a revert. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Merge with draft==

There is a draft for this article [[Theory of relativity/draft | here]]. Surely it's about time these two were merged together or at the very least decide which one is to be continued. I will continue to work on Theory of Relativity/draft as I feel it is a much clearer article. What does everyone else think? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 07:33, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: Your draft article has some great stuff in it. Would you like to merge it into the main article now? However, please do not delete anything from the main article as part of the merge. Thanks and a good Easter to you.

: By the way, it appears that relativity is taught in college without using the concept of relativistic mass. But let's go with your relativistic mass as you wrote it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, I'll take a shot at a merge now. Relativistic mass is quite important to the theory, as from it we can determine that matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== This isn't Wikipedia ==

Teji, don't delete facts here that liberals don't like. This isn't Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Please read my explanation above. I don't think anyone likes unsourced information that is in the wrong topic. Please contribute to [[Moral relativity]]. I had to create that page while someone was adding information about it to the this topic. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Furthermore, that link is about moral relativity, not special relativity. It belongs in [[Moral relativity]]. It is shocking that someone so interested in that topic didn't even think to make the article. In fact, I started that article! [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:12, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here is what I said above in case you didn't catch it: ''No reputable explanations of relativity mention moral relativity. Find a reputable one. Don't look for moral relativity explanations that include physics relativity, because that information belongs in Moral relativity, not here. You are researching the wrong topic. Repeat: look for information about the physical theory of relativity and see if you can find one that mentions moral relativity (not pages that talk about moral relativity and mention physical relativity). Furthermore, anyone can set up a web page and say whatever they want, so web pages are generally not a very good resource (unless it's the physics department website at MIT, for instance, because it has credibility in this field). You should find reputable scientific texts. And, please, stick the topic at hand: physical science topics needs physical science resources. There is ample room in the Moral relativity article to discuss. In fact, I'm surprised you aren't contributing more to that article (especially compared to how much you try add to in this article), since you seem to be very interested in the topic and are more knowledgable about it than physical relativity. Teji 13:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)''

:I find it interesting that when you cannot support your information you resort to name-calling and statements about wikipedia. Does this site want credible and accurate information or information with an agenda? Because if it is the latter, please make a statement to that effect in your policy pages, or would that make this website too credible and accurate? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Teji, the statement does not claim that the theory of relativity supports moral relativity, but merely that supporters of moral relativity seized upon the theory of relativity to justify their views. "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views.[3] Historians such as Paul Johnson wrote about how the theory of relativity caused a sea change, justified or not, in 20th century thought." That statement is correct and should not be deleted. Read it, and reread it, and only comment further here if you can provide something that specifically refutes that statement. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:It is in the wrong place. The statement is clearly about [[Moral relativity]]. This statement is also correct: ''Jesus is God'', does it belong in this article? No. Here is another correct statement: ''morality is "what is the good" and ethics is "how do I practice it"'' from the moral relativity site. Does it belong in this artcle? Certainly not. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Correctness is not enough. There also must be accuracy. Information about [[Moral relativity]] belongs in that article. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Maybe you should change the title to just "Relativity". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, how do I do that? We could also make a disambiguation page, but I don't know how to do that either. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::RSchlafly, you've missed the point. This article is about the Theory of Relativity as a scientific theory. As such, the article should not talk about Moral relativity which, apart from sharing using the same word, is absolutely nothing at all to do with the Theory of Relativity. I also, do not think that the sentence about Moral relativity should be put on this article. At the very most a link at the bottom of this article to Moral relativity, but you may as well link it to a page on forestry for all the relevance it has. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 05:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Exactly, if you want to speak about moral relativists using special or general relativity as validation for their philosophy then it should be placed in an articlea bout moral relativism. It should '''not''' be here. Perhaps - perhaps - it could go in a section on the influence of the theory of relativity on 20th century culture.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why was quote about Dicke removed? ==

I added this quote about the Francis Dicke's theory. Aschalfy, why did you remove it without any comments? It is from the same time magazine article that is already cited in this article. It clarifies why Dicke's theory is less professionally accepted! Please read the article yourself. It shows that Einstein's theory was closer than Dicke's.

''But the J.P.L. experimenters reduced the margin of error to 4% or less by locating the distant spacecraft within 100 ft. of their actual position. Thus, when they calculated that the signal to Mariner was slowed down by 204 millionths of a second on its round trip, '''they dealt the Brans-Dicke theory a sharp if not decisive blow'''. Their measurement was only 4 millionths of a second off the Einsteinian prediction, but 18 millionths of a second off the Brans-Dicke figure.'' http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html

This is the same article that that is cited for the statement ''Physicist Robert Dicke of Princeton University was a prominent critic[7]''. The same article that shows why Robert Dicke's theory is not accepted among scientists. Dicke suffered not just because he criticized Einstein's theory, but also because his theory was not as accurate. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Time magazine is not an authority on whether Dicke's theory is better than Einstein's. Our [[rules]] are very clear not to cite journalists as authorities beyond their expertise. A scientific citation that I added shows that Dicke's theory is held in high regard to this day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The JPL isn't?

::: You've got to do better than that if you want a response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: And a link from the JPL http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/70s/release_1970_0566.html --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That's an old self-serving press release about only one study. My footnote about relativity, citing a renaissance in Dicke's theory, is more recent and more comprehensive, and is based on a astrophysics encyclopedia. So your cite is not appropriate.

:::: And another article http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/9404/dicke.html about Dicke's critique of relativity and where it failed to produce a better answer. Tests included sodium lines in the sun, distance to the moon, and precession of Mercury. I do not believe that it is fair to say that the ''theory'' is held in high regard today. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll take a look at this. I must say, however, that any article that starts out by calling its opponent a "crank" lacks credibility. But this cite is worth including to reflect the political bias against Dicke, resulting in his being denied the Nobel Prize.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::It actually specifically says that Dicke was not a "crank." [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Ah, yes. The author charitably concedes that Dicke himself was not a crank, just anyone who supported Dicke's view was.

::::: This article, which I'm reading now, is incredibly biased and one-sided. It declares the "General Theory" to be possibly the "greatest single achievement in physics ... of all time." And the author states his extremely biased view before telling us about testing results. Too bad this conflicts with the encyclopedia I cite in the content page. The value of this article is to show how intolerant supporters of the "General Theory" are of any criticism, including that by Dicke.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: If Dicke's results were as good or better than General Relativity, then there would be no issue at all. It also addresses reference #8 about not getting a Nobel Prize - that is because the prize is for discovery, not interpretations. He wasn't a theoretician and thus didn't have other theories and discoveries. The individual Dicke is held with high regard in the community - his theory is not (though it is respected in developing the framework for relativistic events). I am curious to see a citation that shows his theory as being respected for the results it gives. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::: Also the article you misuse by taking the whole renaissance statement out of says this in the same paragraph before your quote!
::::::::''Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time.''
::::::: [[User:Teji|Teji]] 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Muon experiment from another point of view ==

From the point of view of the muon in the experiment mentioned, time is not slowed down, but rather distance is compressed. So instead of dilating time 5x across 10km of travel at relativistic speed, the muon saw that space had compressed from 10km to 2km (also 5x) and it was still traveling that distance. Thus, the same result - just different perspectives. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:50, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ref: Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was never given a Nobel Prize. ==

I would like to remove this reference. Nobel Prizes are given for discoveries and advancements. Dicke was an experimentalist - not a theorist. He didn't make discoveries or advancements but rather proved or disproved what the theorists came up with. As such, the work he did was not something that was noted by those nominating for the Nobel Prize. Likewise, you won't see a book critic get a Nobel Prize for literature, no matter how good of a critic he or she may be. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:02, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: Given that there has been no comment on this in opposition, I am removing the reference until someone can dispute the question of if any of Dicke's work was the type for which a Nobel Prize would have been given. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:46, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: I'm reverting your change. Experimentalists win the Nobel Prize all the time. A prize was given to someone else for work Dicke was doing. In fact, experimentalists probably win the prize more than theorists. The deletion of that sentence is for liberal purposes, and we don't allow that here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Government support of relativity research problems ==

The section on government support of relativity research needs a big re-write, but it needs to be clear what is intended first. There are several specific complaints which seem to have been jumbled together:
#LIGO was a failure, and the money could have been spent elsewhere.
#Too much money is spent on string theory and similar theories.
#The government does not support research into (unspecified) alternate theories.

#This is just liberal crybabying. Not all experiments work, and you can't know ahead of time which ones will. Most such complaints about too much money being spent on some experimental program are based on the idea of government as sugar-daddy, and whining when sugar-daddy likes someone else best.
#This complaint is more legitimate, as there are serious claims that string theory is not a scientific theory. However, this complaint doesn't belong in this article, because string theory is not relativity; it's an attempt to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics. String theory would replace general relativity, if a coherent theory were formulated, and then tested.
#This complaint seems ridiculous, as the government has funded plenty of tests to verify general relativity; any experimenter who wants to test an alternate theory can devise a test which would produce one result if GR is correct, and another if the alternate theory is true, and ask for funding for a test to verify GR.

On the other hand, perhaps the section could be deleted altogether. [[User:Ultramontanist|Ultramontanist]] 02:02, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== Relativistic mass ==
This paragraph is nonsense:
: 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. But mass is not a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is unacceptable.

The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is. Some don't like the term "relatvistic mass", but for other reasons.

This is also nonsense:
:In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
::1. It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.
:: 2. The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
:: 3. The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

This is not a restatement. Relativity says masses cannot for faster than light. Probably not information either, but that is another principle. Parts 2 and 3 are confusing and misleading, at best. Relativity teaches that there are no inertial frames in the universe. The laws of physics apply throughout the universe. They apply whether there is acceleration or not. But special relativity has more to do with inertial frames.

I suggest getting rid of these "layman's terms". They aren't. They don't clarify anything for anybody. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:29, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== GPS edit ==

Bayes, your claim that GPS is based on the Theory of General Relativity is not correct. GPS synchronization can be done directly, and has never relied on the theory. Your edits should be reverted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:My apologies. I didn't mean to edit recklessly; I thought I was correcting a typo. In fact, the [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html source cited by that sentence] ''before'' I made my edit (and many other sources as well) indicate that relativistic corrections are, in fact, taken into account by GPS receivers. Clocks on the satellites run at different rates than those on the ground due to the fact that they are at a higher altitude, where gravity is weaker; hence the need for a correction for gravitational time dilation, as predicted by general relativity. Yes, that means that clocks in Denver tick slightly faster than clocks in New York. I would be happy to look at any sources you can provide that show how GPS keeps accurate time without those corrections.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:30, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Your citation is to a silly, unsupported and off-hand remark by a professor of astronomy. GPS was built by engineers in the 1970s, who would not have even attempted to calculated the time dilation using relativity. There would be no reason to rely on relativity, since the clocks can be and were synchronized more directly, more simply and more accurately by communicating with them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:09, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::1. Let me reiterate that the citation was there before I made my edit. The previous version denied that relativistic corrections are necessary, and then cited a source to the contrary. Your recent edit makes a similar claim, but cites a source that doesn't delve deeply into technical aspects of how GPS actually works, and is therefore irrelevant to the claim. 
:::2. You can dismiss the citation in question if you like, but it seems that the overwhelming majority of experts disagree; consider [http://www.aticourses.com/global_positioning_system.htm 1] [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp 2] [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf 3], which I doubt would be considered "silly, unsupported and off-hand remark[s]." 
:::3. GPS designers in the 1970s certainly knew about relativistic effects. Here's an exerpt from [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf 3]: 
:::[B]efore the first GPS satellite was launched in 1977, although it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require such a relativistic offset, there was uncertainty as to its magnitude, and even its sign. So correcting frequency synthesizers were built into the clocks, spanning a large enough range around the nominal 10.23 MHz clock frequency to encompass all possibilities. After the satellite's cesium atomic clock was turned on, it was operated for three weeks to measure its rate. The frequency shift measured during this initial period was found to be 4.425 parts per ten billion, agreeing with the relativistic calculation to better than 1%. 
:::4. Yes, communication with the satellites is possible. That doesn't change the fact that satellite clocks run at different rates than ground-based clocks, which would result in huge errors if the satellite clock frequencies weren't compensated for time dilation effects.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:17, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== Criticism of LIGO ==

The criticism of LIGO under the heading "Government funding..." should be viewed in context. The observatories are not yet operating at their maximum level of precision. The usual procedure when building large projects like this is to make sure they work at more imprecise levels, and then "tune" them closer and closer to their limits. It isn't surprising that LIGO has not yet detected gravitational waves, and the consensus is that such waves will be detected in the future. The [http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html cource cited] for that criticism even mentions that physicists are "confident" that LIGO will be successful. After all, the NSF doesn't shell out hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money on a coin flip; they were/are convinced that getting results is a slam dunk.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:48, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

: Hope springs eternal. I'm afraid you sound like an oil-well driller (wildcatter) who, after encountering one dry well after another in a region, says "just spend a little more money and drill again!"

: LIGO has been a disappointment so far, and there is no sign of success right around the corner. At some point accountability is in order, even if more money is to be spent searching gravity waves. Realize that this search has been ongoing for 100 years, without any detection. How many more years are necessary?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:12, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::While I fully agree that accountability for all major budget items is in order at some point, I don't think the oil-driller analogy is valid in this context. LIGO is still far from its designed sensitivity, as mentioned [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJM-4B5R97X-F&_user=1010281&_handle=V-WA-A-W-VB-MsSAYVA-UUW-U-AAVUWVWVAB-AABDYWBWAB-CEYDYDUEB-VB-U&_fmt=summary&_coverDate=01%2F21%2F2004&_rdoc=15&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%235314%232004%23994829998%23476198%21&_cdi=5314&view=c&_acct=C000050264&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1010281&md5=6a930932559a96137a8b6aafdb2d9372 here]. Plans are already underway to do go beyond merely detecting gravitational waves to doing astrophysics with them. Furthermore, detection of gravitational waves requires extreme sensitivity that can only be achieved with modern technology. Serious efforts to detect them didn't begin until the 1960s, when Joseph Weber built his bar detectors, and even then the scientific consensus was that his detectors weren't sensitive enough. Some scientific advances just have to wait for technology to allow their discovery. Tell you what, if LIGO is considered a failure in 10 years, I owe you a Coke.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:40, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::It's been nearly 2 years since your message above, and LIGO has been operational for nearly 7 years. Do you really insist on waiting a full 10 years (after spending a billion dollars) before allowing some accountability? LIGO soaked up a ton of research money that could have been spent on promising technology and potential cures.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

== Other issues ==
There are some other aspects of this article that I would like to consider adding to or changing.
*A fair amount of text is dedicated to Eddington's findings and not many other astronomical observations. Eddington published his results in 1919; obviously, since then, there have been many others who have improved on his observations.
*The "Ostensible Paradoxes" section should be heavily altered or removed; there aren't any paradoxes listed there. First, the SR postulates don't offer any opinion on whether physical constants have had the same value throughout the history of the universe; they state that all inertial observers get the same answer when they measure the speed of light. Second, there are several ways to measure wave velocity; some of the most common are [[group velocity]] and [[phase velocity]]. Both types of velocities can exceed the speed of light (''c'') without violating special relativity. However, the energy velocity and information velocity do not exceed ''c'', also in accordance with SR. There is nothing mysterious or sinister going on here; these concepts are addressed or at least mentioned in many undergraduate courses. Third, the universal constant ''c'' is the speed of light ''in vacuum''; the speed of light ''in materials'' is less than than ''c'' since the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of materials are different than those of vacuum. That means that matter can travel faster than light ''in a material'' without violating SR; try Googling [[Cerenkov radiation]].--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:28, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'm concerned about the use of some citations, which seem to be misrepresented in order to discredit relativity. For instance:
:*The Economist article cited does not attack relativity; it's a discussion of how GR is being tested to its limits, like any other theory. If any improved theory of gravity is found, GR is likely to be a useful subset of it, in the same way that Newtonian gravity is a useful subset of GR. And anyway, I thought non-scientific sources [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_relativity&diff=prev&oldid=95688 weren't supposed to used] in these situations.
:*The new cite for the statement ''There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views'' is an opinion piece about how moral relativists hijacked scientific relativity for their own purposes. The cite doesn't make that claim, and it doesn't show any data to support it. Frankly, I'd be very surprised if any such correlation existed. Even IF that kind of correlation existed, it doesn't belong in a scientific article.

:The overall tone of the article seems to try to convince the reader to be skeptical of relativity. It appears to me that such skepticism is ideologically motivated, e.g., ''Although the liberally biased Wikipedia contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries...'', ''The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project...'', ''There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views''. I don't fully understand the motivation, but it bears repeating that good science (of which relativity is a part) is independent of ideology.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:54, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:: You're not the first to deny a [[liberal bias]] in science. But surely you would agree that the following areas of science, and perhaps nearly of all science, are susceptible to political bias:

**[[global warming]]
**nuclear energy
**the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]
**claims of extraterritorial life
**demands for government funding of science

::--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I absolutely agree that deciding what science to fund, implementation of policies pertaining to scientific findings, or practical use of scientific results (like nuclear weapons), and perhaps some other issues not mentioned are or can be politicized. But I stand by my basic point: if you get a liberal to measure acceleration due to gravity on Earth's surface, and then get a conservative to do the same thing, they'll both get 9.8 m/s^2. Similarly, relativity has been around long enough, has useful applications, and is so successful in predicting experimental outcomes that it should not be subject to the same treatment as the more controversial topics you mention.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:24, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: You apparently don't concede the liberal bias in the majority of my examples above, such as global warming and SDI. When I worked as engineer at a research facility in the 1980s, we had an IBM scientist with impeccable credentials give a presentation claim that SDI was impossible, dangerous, and bad politics. It's silly to pretend that his claim of impossibility of SDI was unrelated to politics. Likewise, it's silly to pretend there is no political bias in global warming theories. But if we can't agree on that, then there is little point in discussing this further. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Did you read the first sentence of my post above? Global warming is an example of tough policy decisions that could be implemented based on scientific findings. Surely both conservatives and liberals agree with the basic finding that the earth is warming. Similarly, the political debate over SDI was about the USE of science and technology, not the FINDINGS of science and technology. Sure, scientists can have opinions about what to do with their findings, but presumably the experimental results are valid across political lines. In any case, this is an aside; my specific concerns with the article, as addressed on this page, still stand. I assume by your willingness to exit the conversation that you don't have any problems with me addressing them?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:48, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Your first sentence omitted any reference to global warming. Global warming is a liberal scientific theory about if and why the earth is warming. Yes, there are political biases in many scientific theories. If you can't accept that, then I urge you to become more open-minded first before trying to pretend that something is immune from politics.

:::: I have no objections to factual edits of this article that add information. I do object to pushing a liberal point of view by deleting factual information. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:02, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: Sounds good. However, the fact that GPS satellite clocks have built-in corrections for relativistic effects is something I inserted previously, and it was reverted. I hope you understand that I brought up these issues in an effort to accurately represent the science, and not because of some agenda. As I've said, I don't think special and general relativity are associated with political controversy.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 19:12, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Bayes, you continue to insist on a falsehood, and I attribute that to [[liberal]] distortions in what you've read elsewhere. Please recognize that politics does distort science. '''GPS satellite clocks were not built based on predictions made by the theory of relativity.'''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: See my post above, where I have cited several sources that assert the contrary. On the other hand, you have yet to provide any evidence of how GPS can work without taking such corrections into account. Your source for that claim does not address timing issues with regard to GPS. I have to say that I'm increasingly baffled by your continued denial of this verifiable fact. How would a vast liberal conspiracy gain from hiding how clocks work?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:00, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Bayes, you're talking to a former engineer. GPS was built by engineers, not by theoretical physicists. GPS never used the theory of relativity. If you continue to dispute that (likely due to [[liberal]] bias), then give me your very best cite for your claim that GPS used the theory of relativity and I'll look at it. Otherwise, drop it and move on to a different issue. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:41, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

GPS and relativity links:
* http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
* http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
* http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm (actual equations)
* http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
* http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~kpgokeef/pubs/ENGO625relativity.pdf (slides from an engineering lecture - see pages 23-30 for listing of relativistic effects GPS accounts for - note conclusions on page 31.)
--[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 21:53, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: No, you're not listening. Give me your best cite for the claim that GPS *uses* the theory of relativity. Pick out your best, that's all I'm going to waste time on, since the answer is obvious to any engineer: GPS never used the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:58, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:: In that case, I should probably reference http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf "GPS And Relativity: An Engineering Overview".
:: The first page introduction finishes with "In this paper, we compare the predictions of relativity to those of intuitive, classical, Newtonian physics; we show how large or small the differences are, and how and what applications those difference are large enough to make it necessary to correct the formulas of classical physics."
:: Lorentz Contraction is covered on page 2, Gravitational redshift on page 3, and the acceleration of the satellite on page 4.
::: "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 -4.45x10-10 (= -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."
:: Does that help answer the question? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 22:22, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::: The very first sentences of this paper prove my point (emphasis added):

:::: 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 - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: 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 remainder of the paper is theoretical speculation about how a future GPS system might use relativity. There is disagreement about how relativity might be used, as reflected by comments in the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:05, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: The remainder of the paper is about improvements to the GPS system. The paper was published in '97. In 2001, the system was updated. With Block II GPS satelites, OCS was rewritten so that it doesn't require constant updates from ground stations to reset the clocks http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/mail/igsreport/1994/msg00146.html (example of clock reset for relativity prior to 2001). Instead, now, accounting for relativity constantly the GPS satellites are able to offer much more accurate positioning (this was required, as mentioned by the paper I previously linked, the 6 meter accuracy - it is now required by the 2001 performance standard http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/2001SPSPerformanceStandardFINAL.pdf (page 20 of the document, section 3.4) . If you are willing to reset the clock periodically and accept errors between clock resets - then you can discount relativity. If you want high accuracy all the time, you must take relativity into account between synchronizations. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:58, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: The remainder of the paper is about '''proposed''' improvements to the GPS system. There is nothing indicating that those proposals were ever implemented. So that paper strikes out as support for the claim that GPS relies on relativity.

::::: Now you're pointing me to a new paper. I'll look at it in the morning but, as I said, pick your best one. If this paper strikes out also then I'm unlikely to keep looking at more and more papers to explain why each one fails to support the claim. Please provide your very best cite, as I requested before. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:07, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::How about [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf this one], written by [http://www.colorado.edu/physics/Web/directory/faculty/ashby_n.html Neil Ashby] for [http://www.physicstoday.org/ Physics Today], a major publication of the AIP. Again, I quote from a portion, although the entire paper is about the issue in question:

:::::"[B]efore the first GPS satellite was launched in 1977, although it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require such a relativistic offset, there was uncertainty as to its magnitude, and even its sign. So correcting frequency synthesizers were built into the clocks, spanning a large enough range around the nominal 10.23 MHz clock frequency to encompass all possibilities. After the satellite's cesium atomic clock was turned on, it was operated for three weeks to measure its rate. The frequency shift measured during this initial period was found to be 4.425 parts per ten billion, agreeing with the relativistic calculation to better than 1%."

::::You've now been presented with many sources from Rutm and I supporting GR implementation in GPS, and you have yet to produce one source that says that GPS works on only classical principles. Furthermore, I question your motivation in demanding one "best" source, since I anticipate that you will attempt to attack the "best source," perhaps by invoking "liberal bias" (as if it existed in this case--either the clocks run at different frequencies or they don't), ignoring the vast consensus, and proclaim "victory."--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 10:56, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, I think I now (finally!) understand what's going on. I think we have a misunderstanding here; we're talking about two different kinds of corrections. The paper supplied by Rutm (and quoted in the current article) is discussing relativistic corrections to the frequency of signals measured by the receivers. That paper is from the early 1990s, and at that time no relativistic corrections were performed for those signals (though corrections might be taken into account now). Throughout this discussion, I have been referring to the fact that clocks on GPS space vehicles have ALWAYS had built-in frequency offsets to account for the relativistic effects on moving clocks and clocks in gravitational potentials. It's a question of corrections made to the '''communications''' between GPS components and the '''on-board clocks''' of the satellites; the former are not as important, while the latter are very important. Any problems with inserting this nuance into the article?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 19:14, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Andy, that GPS quote is extremely misleading. It implies that the relativistic effects are too small to be significant. But the rest of the paragraph explains that relativistic corrections are necessary to meet the accuracy requirements of most users. The article is incorrect when it states, "Predictions of relativity have not historically been used to make the Global Positioning System (GPS) function properly." Relativity has in fact been used, and programmed into satellites and receivers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:48, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:That's simply not true. GPS adjustments have been based on observation, not theoretical prediction. Effects predicted by relativity are offsetting to each other and the experts could not even agree in which direction the small net effect would be.
:This is a matter of historical fact and it's astonishing that the demands to rewrite history about this are so persistent. The quote confirms the obvious: GPS adjustments are based on observation, not theoretical prediction.
:For those who claim to have such a thorough understanding of GPS here, how about answering the question below: does Newtonian mechanics predict any divergence in the clocks from the satellite compared to ground? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: No, the fact is that the GPS satellites have operated both with and without the relativistic corrections. The cited articles confirm that. You are completely wrong to say that relativistic corrections have not been used.
:: The relativistic corrections partially offset each other, but not entirely, and they are big enough to affect accuracy in a typical consumer GPS unit. It is also false to say that there is disagreement among physicists on the point.
:: If you were right, then find an article that supports what you say. That paragraph you quote ends with "large enough to make it necessary to correct the formulas of classical physics." Include that, and give the date on the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:09, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:The article first states the obvious: GPS is not designed using the theory of relativity. Then the article discusses an ongoing and unresolved dispute about exactly what the theory of relativity does predict for the numerous factors involved in the GPS system, and makes its own unverified claims. Relativity predicts time differences going in both directions, and there are issues about what the inertial frame should be. One article cited earlier, which I will try to find and reinsert, states that Lorentzian (not Special) Relativity generally matches observations best.

:GPS was built by engineers and there is no reason for them to rely on the theory of relativity. It is far simpler and more reliable simply to observe the time differences. Engineers don't study the theory of relativity, and if you think a physicist well-versed in the theory of relativity provided essential predictions for the GPS engineers, then who was he? Give us his name and he we can simply ask him. Was he nominated for a Nobel prize? Surely he would have at least published a paper about his work. Where is it????

:And where is the answer to the question as to whether Newtonian mechanics predicts time difference in the GPS system also? After all, if someone is going to claim that GPS confirms the superiority of relativity to Newtonian mechanics, then surely he must first make a statement about whether Newtonian mechanics predicts a time difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:56, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: What you say is just not true. GPS was designed with an understanding of the magnitude of the relativistic effects. The effects are well-understood, and no one was nominated for a Nobel prize for predicting the effects. Yes, there were engineers who didn't study relativity and didn't think that relativistic effects would be significant. They have been proven wrong. There are no unresolved disputes. You have been given several references that tell the story. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:41, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

::: To sum:

*** no physicists have been identified who supposedly incorporated relativity into the GPS design
*** no papers exist describing how relativity *was* (not "might be") used in GPS
*** references that have been provided describe disagreements among physicists about the relativistic predictions for GPS
*** those claiming that GPS confirms relativity compared to Newtonian mechanics don't know whether Newtonian mechanics also predicts time differences, which renders the comparison pointless.

::: I realize that historical revisionism is common in many areas, but I would hope that science would adhere to a higher standard. Sometimes, unfortunately, science seems be even more vulnerable to revisionism. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:04, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: I will respond to this post below, under "Question about GPS"--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 13:55, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: As Bayes explains, the papers do say that relativity was used in GPS. Just what is the disagreement among physicists? I didn't see any in your references. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:43, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: No, none of the papers state that a physicist or group of physicists provided the complex relativistic predictions and that those predictions were incorporated into a particular GPS system. Engineers don't study relativity, and if physicists provided these predictions to a GPS system then there would be (a) names of physicists, (b) dates of incorporation, and (c) adjustments based on results. None of this happened.

::::: The claim that relativistic predictions were actually used in an actual GPS system wouldn't last 5 minutes on a witness stand at trial. It's pure fiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:20, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Theory of Relativity (moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]) ==

I found it offensive that you labelled my edit a "liberal edit". I was not aware of the Corpuscular Theory of Light, and therefore I did not know what "Newton's theory" in that sentence was referring to. Since there was no link (as there is now) to a page which shows Einstein's formula being two times more than his previous one, which was stated to be same as Newton's, I changed the sentence to the best of my knowledge - that light was viewed as a wave through ether at Newton's time, and therefore his theory of gravity does not apply.

How my mistake is a "liberal edit" is beyond me.
[[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:47, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: Please accept my apologies. By way of explanation, not as justification, liberals love relativism and their spin on the theory of relativity, and exaggerate everything associated with it. Claiming that relativity predicts the bending of light while Newton did not is one of those exaggerations. A simple search on the internet before deleting something here is always advisable, and that simple search reveals how Newton's theory predicts the bending of light too (though not by as much). I think this Newtonian prediction is in high school physics problem books, so it is not obscure.

: Regardless, thanks for your efforts and I look forward to more additions by you here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::I'll search the internet before making changes next time. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:04, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Ashlafly, I am concerned about the overall tone of the [[relativity]] article. Some statements suggest the presence of an anti-relativity agenda. Am I correct in guessing that this stance is due to a perceived link between moral relativism, the Democratic party, and the scientific concept of relativity? If so, I'd like to point out that while scientific funding by the government is certainly a political issue, actual scientific research is a separate issue and is independent of political leanings. The outcome of a proper experiment does not depend on whether the scientists conducting it are conservative or liberal. You are indeed justified if you are objecting to overzealous extrapolations based on scientific findings (such as moral relativism being based on scientific relativity), but such extrapolations have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific findings themselves. IMHO, encyclopedic articles on the scientific concept of relativity should stick to the science and not go into philosophy or politics. Furthermore, criticism of concepts such as moral relativism should be concerned with the merits (or lack thereof) of the concepts themselves, not on sound science that has nothing to do with it. Attempts to discredit relativity because of perceived links to philosohical or political positions that one disagrees with are not scientific, and fly in the face of undeniable experimental verification, basic facts (like how GPS satellite clocks function) and essentially universal acceptance of at least the basic principles. If you would like to incorporate some of the material on the current relativity page into a separate article, such as [[Historical views of relativity]], a personal essay, or something similar, then I would be all for it. I have not yet edited the relativity article heavily, but please see [[Talk:Theory of relativity]] for some of my specific conerns.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:56, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: I have already responded to this above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:32, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

== Question about GPS ==
Does Newtonian mechanics predict that clocks on GPS satellites will diverge from clocks on earth? That is not an easy question to answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:32, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:As far as I'm aware, no. It's relativity that predicts that there will be a divergence in time, for reasons already discussed. However, I want to throw in: both of you aruging about whether GPS satellites use relativity are correct in certain ways. Andy, you're correct that there is no actual use of relativity on the circuits on board the satellite. For those arguing that relativity is used, you're correct too; based on predictions from both general and special relativity, the clocks on the satellites are fine tuned with an offset to minimize the nano-second order deviations from clocks on the ground. Then, for practical purposes, newtonian based approximations are acceptable accuracy-wise. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 14:08, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

: Mr. Schlafly, I apologize for not responding more quickly. Newtonian mechanics cannot account for the observed divergence in clock rates. Classically, inertial reference frames are related by [[Galilean transformations]]:

:: x' = x + vt
:: t' = t

:: where x and x' are positions in the rest and moving frame, respectively
:: t and t' are times in the rest and moving frame, respectively
:: v is the velocity of the moving frame relative to the rest frame. Note that frame labels like "rest" and "moving" are arbitrary.

: According to those transformations, time in all inertial frames is the same (t' = t), and therefore no time dilation is predicted. However, the Lorentz transformations that relate inertial frames according to special relativity DO predict time dilation. So that would allow for corrections based on the relative speeds of the satellites. However, you could reconcile the time difference using classical mechanics IF you assert that the speed of light in the moving frame is different from the speed of light in the rest frame; that would essentially mean that the satellites are measuring a different light speed than the earth is. Such assertions would conflict with experimental evidence.

: Another, more significant time dilation effect is due to gravitational time dilation, predicted by general relativity, which is dependent on the curvature of spacetime. Newtonian gravity incorporates an "action at a distance" principle and does not incorporate spacetime curvature, and therefore predicts no gravitational time dilation.

: Also, your statement that no sources have been provided showing that corrections for relativistic effects were historically incorporated is incorrect, as I have twice quoted from a Physics Today article (see above) showing that devices allowing for such corrections to clock frequencies were used when the satellites were first launched. I'm still convinced we have a misunderstanding; the satellite clock frequencies have used and do need relativistic corrections, but once those corrections are implemented, Newtonian physics works fine for communication and position calculations (although some sources seem to indicate that may not be true for fast-moving objects, like jets and so forth). However, you have successfully convinced me that there is something of a political element in some areas of science :)--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:40, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Bayes, it's wrong to assert that Newtonian mechanics does not predict time differences in GPS clocks. You can't build a clock that would be uneffected by acceleration under Newtonian mechanics.
:: Let's be frank for a moment. It's absurd to insist that an experiment proves theory A is superior to theory B when there is no understanding of what theory B even says about the experiment. Theory A may indeed be better than theory B, but superiority is not demonstrated by that experiment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:26, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::: You got a physics paper saying that relativity explains the GPS clock differences to within 1%. There is no Newtonian explanation for the differences. Just give the fact, and let the reader decide which theory is superior. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:48, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: The paper does not demonstrate that relativity predictions were incorporated into GPS. No paper demonstrates that.
:::: A few (not many) papers claim that observed GPS clock differences can be explained by relativity. That is a very different claim, and requires examining carefully the assumptions made in the calculations to justify a claim that the theory matches an observed result. It also requires comparing the calculations to Newtonian calculations, which the papers utterly fail to do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: Yes, of course those papers compare to Newtonian calculations. That is why they are called "GPS clock differences". They are the differences between the relativistic and Newtonian calculations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: No they don't. Those few papers attempting to match relativity theory with GPS clock results all implicitly assume that the effects on the accelerated clocks from Newtonian mechanics are zero. That is likely wrong. And that explains why there are so few papers and so few physicists who claim personally to have confirmed GPS results with relativity theory.

:::::: If GPS results really did confirm relativity theory, then this would be in textbooks and classroom assignments. It isn't. Only a few obscure physicists even make the claim asserted here, and because they implicitly make the assumption that Newtonian effects are zero, their claims are not credible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: Yes, of course the Newtonian effect on time are zero. What are you suggesting -- that some unknown Newtonian effect might predict a GPS clock difference that just happens to match the relativistic calculation? The fact remains that the GPS clock differences are predicted by relativity, and not by any other theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: There is a Newtonian effect on the clocks. Yet this was not even addressed by a few obscure physicists who claim to derive, using relativity while disagreeing with other experts, the exact same result as the observed GPS time differences. This omission hardly inspires confidence in their unverified work. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: It wasn't addressed because it doesn't exist. Do you have any reliable source that says that a Newtonian effect can explain the observed GPS time differences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:13, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: And if there is no such paper, then the relativity claim about GPS must be true??? No, the relativity claim about GPS needs to stand on far better logic than that.

::::::::: In fact, the few papers claiming relatitivy is confirmed by GPS, written by obscure physicists, overlooked the Newtonian effects on the clocks. If you think you can build a clock immune from Newtonian effects, then patent it immediately. Can't be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:49, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

<----

Please identify the calculations that predict a difference in time. Bayes has already shown that time in all inertial reference frames is equal and identified how he derived this statement, so there's obviously something we're missing. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:57, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Andy, if there is no paper saying that a Newtonian effect can explain the observed GPS time differences, then it is correct to say that relativity provides the only known explanation for those differences. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: No, we shouldn't accept the equivalent of "relative proof." Just because a flawed proof or claim is better than other flawed proofs or claims does not mean it is acceptable. Would any mathematician embrace a flawed proof because it is better than other flawed attempts to prove the same theorem? I don't think so. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:: If you don't want to call it a "relative proof", that's fine with me. I am just correcting errors. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:06, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::: Here are the facts:

:::*GPS satellite clocks have mechanisms to correct for frequency offsets caused by time dilation. I don't see how this can be disputed, unless you want to stubbornly deny that such devices exist, in which case you can claim that cars don't have engines.

:::: It hasn't been proven that the frequency offsets are due to "time dilation." Instead, you assume what you claim to prove. Your logic is circular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*Newtonian mechanics does not predict ANY time dilation because it regards time as absolute, even in accelerating frames. Again, I don't see how this can be reasonably disputed, outside of winning a Nobel Prize. There are no reputable sources that predict Newtonian time dilation because there is no Newtonian time dilation.

:::: No one said that Newtonian mechanics does predict time dilation. This is a strawman argument. What is true is that Newtonian mechanics effects the operation of clocks in accelerating frames.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*Relativity does predict time dilation. All reputable physicists (not just a few obscure ones) can attest to that.

:::: OK, this is true, but purely theoretical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*The predictions of relativity are in good agreement with the frequency offsets on GPS satellite clocks. Several papers on the topic have been cited on this page.

:::: A few papers by obscure physicists have made this claim, but these papers raise questions like disagreements among relativists and a failure to address Newtonian effects on the clocks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::If you want to flat-out deny the above, then I guess I shouldn't waste my time trying to improve the article. I'll also point out that some significant creationist ideas depend on relativity to explain the starlight problem (God creating the Earth inside a massive gravitational field), so it's not an amoral atheist conspiracy.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:57, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: Relativists love to exaggerate relativity. Earlier, someone here claimed (based on what he had been taught by relativists) that only relativity predicts the bending of light from gravity. Wrong again. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

<---

You state, ''"No one said that Newtonian mechanics does predict time dilation...What is true is that Newtonian mechanics effects [sic] the operation of clocks in accelerating frames."'' Those sentences are contradictory. Newtonian mechanics does NOT predict any difference in the operation of clocks. Furthermore, what do the frequency offsets do if they don't compensate for time dilation?? Are they decorative?? Clock frequencies have to be adjusted ''because the clocks run at different rates''. And whatever extrapolations "relativists" come up with have nothing to do with the science.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:36, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that's correct. If you wanted to make an anti-relativity statement, I think that here is the most that you could say correctly is this:

* GPS does not prove relativity, in the sense that no experiment ever proves a theory. There is always the possibility that someone will come along later with a better explanation.

* Being able to calculate the relativistic corrections is not truly essential to making GPS work. Nowadays the satellite clocks are synchronized so frequently that predicting the clock drift is not necessary. If relativity were never discovered, then the satellite corrections could be made without anyone realizing that the system was just adding relativistic corrections. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:02, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::RSchlafly, although I disagree with your decision to remove some of the discussion here, I agree with your position. My only issue is that your second bullet still leaves open the question of why the clocks drift, or why they need to be synchronized often, and implies that we don't have a good explanation. However, we do have a pretty good explanation--relativity can predict such discrepancy to high precision. If GPS is mentioned in the article, I would prefer that we insert language similar to "Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth. Currently, relativity provides the best explanation for such adjustments (insert refs)" Does that sound any better? I'm open other suggestions.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 16:28, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't know what you mean about my "decision to remove some of the discussion here". What discussion did I remove? I did want to remove the 1996 quote because it is out-of-date and out-of-context. Anyway, I inserted your proposed 2 sentences. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:01, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: I was referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ATheory_of_relativity&diff=259155&oldid=259114 this edit]. Anyway, not that big of a deal now; I appreciate your attempt to fix the article, although those attempts have now been effectively neutered [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=next&oldid=259513] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=next&oldid=259528]. The GPS section has now grown so large that it may now detract from learning about relativity. I wonder if it is not better placed on the GPS article rather than this one.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 12:19, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: Sorry, I apparently accidentally lost some comments. I just tried to restore them. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:53, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

==Skepticism==
Edits like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=259513&oldid=259511 this one] made in the last few days are again consistent with the overall skepticism for relativity present in the article. The physicist in question is indeed involved in research into alternatives to general relativity. He appears to support [http://ecolloq.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/2001-Spring/announce.alley.html Yilmaz theory], which is not especially well-regarded by the scientific community [http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/ASGRG/ACGRG1/fackerell.html] [http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504050]. Even if it turned out to be an improvement on GR, it would still predict time dilation and other relativity-esque things, so I don't see what would be gained by denying all of GR but then embracing Yilmaz theory. GR is constantly being tested because a.) it is in conflict with quantum mechanics and b.) it is the current gold standard for theories of gravitation, and the limits of current gold standards are where new physics lie. Physicists I know who are doing research on alternative theories of gravitation teach classes on relativity, and emphasize its success; they aren't "skeptics" who want to throw it in the trash. Improvements on GR are likely to include GR as an approximation, as Newtonian mechanics is an approximation to GR.

Relativity is the current best idea we have to explain a lot of things and works to within experimental uncertainty for all tests of it performed so far. This article should reflect that success instead of embarking on a misguided ideological quest to discredit it in favor of Newtonian mechanics, which is known to have limits. And what I've said applies to GR; SR is even more established. Aschlafly, your problem with relativity appears to be that it is called "relativity" which you believe allows it to somehow be associated with moral relativism. Would your objections still hold if it were named "Reference Frame Theory"? Please remove the skeptical claims, as their inclusion implies willful ignorance to anyone who visits this page.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:37, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, we're factual on this site. Exaggerations about the theory of relativity or anything else are not allowed here. For example, one editor here claimed that relativity predicts the bending of light but that Newtonian mechanics does not. That is false. Some of the claims here about GPS using relativity have also been false. This isn't allowed in a credible encyclopedia. Go to Wikipedia if you want to stretch or distort the truth to suit your personal views about what the facts should be. Here we state what the facts are.

: Similarly, we don't delete or censor factual scientific information here. You recently deleted factual information without justification, and your deletion has been reverted. Please abide by our [[rules]]. Thank you and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:21, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Andy, I don't get the point of your edits. Under Ostensible Paradoxes, you have a 2001 article that says "If confirmed, the finding could mean ...". That was 6 years ago. Was it confirmed, or not? The following results are somewhat interesting, but obscure. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:14, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

== Nasa on spacecraft and relativity ==

Three of the items found with a quick search:
* Cassini refines measurements of general relativity with its trip around the sun [http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm]
* Voyager 1's slingshot around Saturn showed frequency shifts in agreement with relativity [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html]
* Gravity Probe B is a satellite launched and demonstrates frame dragging and geodetic warping of space [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html][http://einstein.stanford.edu/]
Given these examples, I believe the passage recently added:
:In addition to GPS discussed above, NASA has launched numerous space probes and missions, but none of them have ever used the theory of relativity in their timing mechanisms even though they experience much weaker gravitational fields in space.
is inappropriate and misleading. Even if the space craft where not ''designed'' with relativity in mind (the Gravity Probe B certainly was designed with it in mind), Voyager and Cassini and others demonstrated the effects of relativity as they dipped into gravity wells and out of them with the frequency of the signal being sent to Earth. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 12:47, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:: The current statement is correct in the entry and we do not delete correct, educational information here. You cite some interesting articles which could also be added if they are given detail and explanation suitable for a high-quality encyclopedia. I took a quick look at your articles and they seem to be designed for public consumption, lacking satisfactory detail of a scientific level. But feel free to add a paragraph '''without exaggeration''' that explains clearly what you think these experiments demonstrate. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The [[libera]] edits and censorship have been reverted. This is not [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 17 December 2007 (EST)

I'm not trying to be liberal or censor, but I doubt anyone thought any less of Dicke due to his support of Brans-Dicke - which is merely the addition of a scalar field to the tensor of GR - in fact, all of einsteinan GR is viable under Brans-Dicke - if the scalar field is set to null - the difference is the allowable effect of long-distance large masses that is not rsquared. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 15:16, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:Um... this is supposed to be targetted towards high school students. Your really doing nothing but babbling to me, because I don't understand what you're talking about. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 20:04, 17 December 2007 (EST)

I made a change that was first related. Even by the methods that science uses to deny christian beliefs they both fail. Putting it that way is a little stronger, as well as more accurate. It's kind of hard to say that "string theory" has been a failure when just about every physicist who wants to work these days needs to learn and be productive in it. It's just entirely "thought experiments" though, and quirking math to make it fit. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 20:02, 17 December 2007 (EST)

If this article is directed at high school students, Dicke would not be mentioned, as his contribution to the theory of relativity was limited. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 09:11, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:His importance to this article for Conservapedia is that he believed in something other than General Relativity, and although very intelligent, never received a Nobel Prize for any of his findings. The point being made is that if you disagree with GR, that you won't get a Nobel Prize. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:13, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Why you would disagree with GR is beyond me, but… --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 14:16, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Whether or not I disagree with GR is irrelevant. This wiki has a goal and purpose, and you need speak toward that audience. The intention of this article is to question and critique GR, not to assume that it is automatically true. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:21, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::You realize that what [[User:PhysicsNut|PhysicsNut]] was explaining - as I understood it - was that Dicke ''didn't'' really believe in something other than General Relativity? All that "babbling" was describing why Brans-Dicke theory differs little from GR (PhysicsNut, feel free to correct me on this). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:19, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::: That's correct. Brans-Dicke with Omega approaching infinity is General Relativity per Einstein. At no point did Dicke doubt that matter bent space-time. He merely postulated that there was another effect of matter that was not an r-squared effect. He didn't win the Nobel because someone else heard the CBR first - Dicke was just the one who realized it was proof-positive of the Big Bang. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 16:44, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::: It's bias to insist on describing theories that compete with relativity in terms of relativity. Also, the explanation for why Dicke, one of the finest physicists of the 20th century responsible for ''multiple breakthroughs'', did not win a [[Nobel Prize]] is not as plausible as the reason given.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Says who? Don't we need "authoritive sources for all the changes you want to make," or is your insinuation that Professor Dicke (who proved the Big Bang as his most notable breakthrough) was a young-earth creationist enough? [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 20:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)

This article is an embarrassment. Whatever - this project is obviously doomed. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 21:05, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Your attitude is completely unhelpful. You should not continue to post. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:21, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Maybe so, Puellanivis, but still, try not to write off editors so quickly! [[User:Physicsnut|Phyiscsnut]] is only new here, and may not have understood how [[Conservapedia]] differs from [[Wikipedia]] or other [[MSM]] outlets. Many editors have moved beyond initial misunderstandings to find ways to contribute positively to Conservapedia, despite ideological differences - so you needn't necessarily drive them off right away. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:06, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::: I don't why there are so many edits to the content page here, and I'll have to sort through them again. Relativity is a magnet for [[liberal bias]], but we're not going to allow such bias here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:21, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::Feebasfactor, your point is very well received. I definitely agree with your point. But people will not get anywhere without discussing and considering. If they express an attitude that this site will never be helpful if it rejects their viewpoint, then that's just silly. Aschlafly, I believe I had cleared it up fairly well with my last revert, but please feel free to review it. I think it attracts so much liberal bias, because they feel like it's home turf, or something, and get mad when anyone insults it. I suppose it's kind of the same thing as the liberals insulting the Bible. It just evokes such a strong response, that liberals get stupid (more so) and don't stop think and consider. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 00:27, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::: Insult relativity all you want. Insult the memory of Robert Dicke and you can rot. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 20:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Physicsnut, you're making no sense. Please don't pollute our pages with namecalling nonsense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:11, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Nobel Prize Contradiction ==

In the beginning of the section Evidence for Relativity you state that, "There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity." This is part of your reasoning as to why GR is not scientifically viable, yet in the section Philosophical Impact of Relativity you state that Robert Dicke is still a an accomplished physician despite his never being awarded any Nobel Prizes. Now it seems to me that if you wish to still credit Robert Dicke as an accomplished physician, which is certainly true, then it would seem only fair to leave out the comment about GR never gaining Nobel recognition. At least not in the context of trying to discredit it. You can't have it both ways. Either it's possible to be reliable and not gain Nobel recognition, or not gaining Nobel recognition speaks to the validity of the subject. One or the other; can't be both. --[[User:Aralith|Aralith]]

: Your logic is defective, because Robert Dicke (physicist, not a physician) was slighted due to bias ''in favor of the theory of relativity''. That bias obviously does not explain the lack of Nobel Prizes for relativity. It's the lack of evidence that is the reason there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:: If the Theory of Relativity is so commonly accepted among physicists (meant to write that in the last post but the wrong word came out of my fingers) how could it be that the Theory of Relativity hasn't gained Nobel recognition, which is voted on by a commitee made up of the same scientists who support said theory unless it is possible for a subject (person, theory, etc.) to be extremely important but not Nobel Prize worthy? In which case it makes perfect logical sense that both Dicke and GR could be a great person/theory respectively but not gain recognition from the Nobel committee.

== legal right to abortion ==

"For example, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama helped publish an article by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to abortion.[39]"

Unfortunately there is no link to the article in question. It would interest me much what the right to abortion has to do with the alleged curvature of space. Either the space is curved, or it isn't. Neither of both could ever affect my moral convictions.

{{unsigned|Harald}}

:This entire section is ridiculous and irrelevant. Clearly the curvature of spacetime was being referred to as a metaphor. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]]

::Please rewrite the section and/or move text to other articles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Where is the reference to Obama helping publish the article? The current reference points to the JSTOR article abstract, which does not mention Obama's involvement whatsoever. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 15:33, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

== Paradoxes? Nobel Prize? ==

Why are these things labeled as paradoxes? The rule is the speed of light IN A VACUUM is constant WITH RESPECT TO INERTIAL FRAME. The variability of c (the speed of light) through a medium is accepted and irrelevant as far as SR is concerned. That is due to the absorption and reemission of photons by atoms as light hits travels through glass (or air or fiber optics cable). Similarly, relativity neither prohibits nor "encourages" a c that varies with the age of the universe. Indeed, the nature of the constant is still a mystery, and it may indeed be dependent on some factors we are unaware of.

If anyone is confused, shoot me an email and I'll either give you a full explanation or point you in the direction of a good resource.

Also, there are several reasons Einstein never received a Nobel Prize for relativity:

-he recieved a prize for the photoelectric effect,which has laid the framework for quantum mechanics (arguably just as important). They may have had qualms over giving two to the same person (they haven't done it yet).

-initially, there was some resistance against it by the old guard of physicists who had wasted their lives pursuing the alternative (and stupid) ether explanation for the nature of c.

-the Nobel committee favors ideas that have practical applications (hence no prize for mathematics), and at the time relativity had none.

-as to why they haven't given him one recently...well, Einstein's dead, and they don't give prizes posthumously. (A sticking point, since the full significance of a theory might only be fully realized generations after its inception).

So saying the Nobel prize hasn't recognized Einstein for relativity is misleading and irrelevant.

And now I'm curious. This article seems to have an anti-relativity bias. Why is relativity unAmerican or unChristian (besides the fact that Einstein was a German Jew)?

And what's up with the Obama reference? I don't think God asks politicians (liberal or conservative) for their opinions when he establishes His natural law. (unsigned by User:QED)

:I looked at your edits for this and found them to be wanting. The information on the Nobel committee is accurate. It's a small part of the article and no specific conclusions are stated from it. I can see why you would believe this is not a slight on relatively, nevertheless it is true as written. In the absense of any counter evidence, such as writings by the Nobel committee explaining this, it should be allowed to stand. Your other point is, temporarily, out of bounds. You may believe that relativity allows for faster than light movement 'virtually', but unless you have a source, it's not going to be included. In other words your conjecture is not going to trump a source that appears to take a neutral position.

:Lastly, do not try to play the minority card again. You aren't Johnny Cochran. The article on Einstein is extensive and written with great respect. I'm assuming you could already have checked it up to see the view on him at CP. Consider this to be your one and only warning in this area. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:38, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:: User: Learn together's analysis is superb. The polemic comments above by QED seem to have little relation to the actual entry here, or to science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

== Questions ==

The introduction refers to "a principle which led to the first theory", but as far as I can see, there's no further reference to or explanation of this. What is this referring to?

It's been asked a couple of times above, but not answered as far as I can see: What relevance does Obama's comment have in this article?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:54, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: The reference to "principle" should be to postulates. That's been fixed. The reference to Obama is explained enough, don't you think? It describes political support for the theory, and use (or misuse) of it for political gain.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:45, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
:: It hasn't been explained on this talk page at all. Harald asked the question above, Kristkrispies added a criticism, and the only reply was from Ed Poor suggesting the section be rewritten. QED asked about it also, and the reply didn't address that point.
:: However, rereading the footnote (or did I miss that before?), I can see a very tenuous connection, but not one that warrants it being included in this article. I suggest it be removed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:44, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, I'm assuming you're referring to the Obama reference. The heading explains it. Political insights are a key part of this site, and explaining [[political benefit]] to something is essential to understanding why it is emphasized and/or misrepresented. The [[theory of relativity]] is used, or misused, to advance [[liberal]] goals, and the Obama reference is an important illustration of that. Would you like to see more examples?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Yes, I was referring to the Obama reference. Not, it's actually the opposite of the heading, because it is (mis)using relativity (physics) to support something political, not political support of relativity which is what the heading refers to. And as such, it's only of marginal if any real relevance to an article about relativity. I guess, though, I can see ''some'' point in it. That is, it's like an article about [[comet]]s mentioning that there was a musical group named [[The Comets]]; a bit of barely-related trivia, but the sort of thing that Wikipedia and Conservapedia sometimes do (often under the heading of "cultural references"). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

== My edits ==
I added a bit more information in the introduction to general relativity, because, as written, the article didn't really explain what the idea behind general relativity was. I don't think the edit is perfect, so people are free to tweak it or add more.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:12, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I also deleted "at infinite speed" from the sentence that said in classical physics light travels at infinite speed in a straight line. In classical physics, light still travels at c (approx 300,000 km/s), as Maxwell or any book on electrodynamics can tell you. In fact, it was this very observation that got people all caught up in the ether theory, because Maxwell's equations made direct reference to the speed of light. Consequently, people assumed that the equations had to be referring to the speed of light with respect to some fixed medium, i.e., the ether. Of course, we all know how well that theory worked out.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:21, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I removed the sentence about the Nobel prize committee not recognizing SR/GR in the evidence for SR/GR section. Mostly, the sentence just seems out of place with the rest of the section. Also, the reference provided was just a link to the Nobel committee homepage.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:49, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I removed the last section: time dilation and creation science. If we start including every crackpot scientific theory ever proposed, this page is going to become enormous.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 14:00, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:I see you are not around to respond, but including the latest creationary thinking doesn't mean that crackpot theories will be included. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== New Edits, Proposed edits ==
This article needs some major work, and I don't mind diving in and trying to correct some things. I added something on the equivalence principle because the existing information about general relativity was mostly mathematical with no physical insight. I'll try to clean up more when I have more time. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I also corrected a mistake about force defined in special relativity. The way it was written it wasn't defining a vector. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Further, I would really like to clean up the experimental evidence section, but there appears to be some contention regarding GPS, so I thought I'd discuss it with other editors here. The GPS definately DOES include some relativistic corrections. Consider the 1996 paper referenced in the article, on page 193 of the journal, page 5 of the article the authors tell us "The GPS operational control system corrects the pseudoranges measured by its monitor stations for the sum of the gravitational and velocity effects." What the article discusses is that the corrections are merely the average corrections, not the full specific velocity/gravitational effects. The article is being used misleadingly to make an unsupported claim. If no one objects in a day or two, I'll make the changes. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I'd also like to remove the stress on Dicke's theory, as Dicke's theory is basically just an extension of GR. Dicke's theory is still a metric theory of gravity involving curved space time, so most of the discussion of GR should be applicable to Dicke's theory. Dicke's theory should probably be included in another article. Also, the contention that Dicke didn't get a nobel because he proposed an alternative theory needs some supporting information or a citation or I think it should be removed. Again, if no one objects, I'll make the change. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I also plan, given time, to give a more "layman" style description of GR following my brief discussion on the equivalence principle. For students, diving straight into tensors, geodesics and field equations will most likely obscure the physics. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

== Einstein's Cross/Ring and Gravitational Lensing==
I think it'd useful to have a picture of gravitational lensing in the proof section. As I'm not an admin, I can't upload it. There's the picture found on wikipedia which is known as "Einstein's Cross," but there are plenty of other examples of gravitational lensing that can be found in the public domain: [http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/search.php?words=lens&x=0&y=0&method=and&format=normal&sort=score&config=picturealbum&restrict=entire_collection%2Fpr&exclude=]. I suggest picking a nice looking one and displaying it. I'm personally partial to the double ring found here: [http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire_collection/pr2008004a/]. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 20:43, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

: The images don't add anything new of substantive value. What's really needed here is more explanation about whether twice as much bending of light by relativity is really predicted and shown, compared to the prediction of bending of light by Newton's theory. Most people are misled to think that Newton's theory does not predict the bending of light, when it does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:53, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I tried to edit, read it over, reverted it as it wasn't making sense. However, I think there should be something about photons being able to move at speeds other than c in the bit about Newtonian lensing. My phrasing was really poor, thus the self-revert. I may take another crack at this later when I can get the words right.--[[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 21:22, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

::: The bending of light in Newtonian physics is not a trivial issue. The mass can approach zero and it still bends, for example. How much it bends is debatable, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:35, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Do you think it'd be a good idea to create a page about the bending of light under Newtonian Dynamics? Most people don't know about this and I think an explanation that's less technical than the linked source might help. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 15:07, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== Science And Math Facts That Prove Einstein's Blatant Error In His Relativity Theory ==
With all due respect, but with regard to truth in real science, my writing here is to provide undeniable mathematical and science fact that special relativity is false science.
For information this math proof was written on Wikipedia about two years ago and they squelched the truth in science by a vote of 8 to 1, and even though a supposed expert in relativity wrote that the math proofs did in fact prove relativity to be totally wrong, in the end he chose to live a lie and to squelch the truth.
In the end you can also squelch truth in real science by determining that truth by the undeniable science and math facts written here or to live according to truth. Either is your choice but squelching will only suppress science facts and true science. So I am going to write the science and math that shows undeniable truth and you can decide. [[User:StevenCrum|StevenCrum]] 16:31, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

:A section on "critiques of Einsteinian relativity" would be good. Do you remember the name of the expert? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:58, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

== More regarding the criticism of LIGO ==

As a student of physics, I feel myself almost obliged to add something to the discussion regarding LIGO, particularly as I work for a Professor that is part of the LIGO collaboration and have actually attended scientific conferences where the subject is addressed (though to be fair my work with her specifically deals with another one of her collaborations, Borexino).

First, as mentioned in previous discussion, it is indeed true that it was understood that LIGO, like many scientific undertakings, would need to be refined and calibrated before reaching its design sensitivity. To claim the LIGO is a failure before it has reached its design sensitivity is just as ridiculous and ignorant as criticizing any other tool or piece of equipment for not functioning before it is properly calibrated. It isn't like the LIGO collaboration is trying to pull any fast ones on anyone by being secretive about this - just do a Google search for LIGO to bring up their web page, where they discuss the details of this matter.

Secondly, it is true that the "success" of the experiment cannot be known prior to its being conducted, but if it could, what would be the point in conducting the experiment in the first place? Experimentation is a necessary aspect of science because scientific investigation fundamentally deals with the discovery of knowledge not previously known to us, and because it is not known to us, even its ultimate usefulness cannot be known a priori. The rate of observed events under the initial design sensitivity is predicted to be very low, so it would not be very surprising if we did not observe anything until advanced LIGO debuts. Even still, there is a fundamental uncertainty in the rate of events that will be seen. Maxwell was once asked what the usefulness of electromagnetism could ever be, to which he replied "What good is a newborn baby?" I do not believe I need to highlight the usefulness of electromagnetism in the modern world.

Which brings me to my third point, which is the enormous significance LIGO holds in terms of scientific potential. If LIGO is successful, it will revolutionize modern day astronomy by providing a new method for detecting cosmological phenomena. Gravitational radiation would offer another method of "imaging" the heavens, independent of electromagnetic radiation. To say that LIGO would have limited scientific benefit would be a serious rebuke to the field of astronomy in general. Optical astronomy would be coupled with gravitational astronomy as a valuable check on astronomical results attained by optical methods alone. But of course, the fundamental uncertainty we have as to what the observed rate of events will be reflects the fact that we do not know with complete certainty what cosmological objects exist, hence the very reason that LIGO would be useful.

Even more revolutionary would be if LIGO failed to detect gravitational waves. If you only assume the existence of a gravitational field, and that disturbances in that field cannot propagate faster than the speed of light, then by the very definition of wavelike phenomena, you have gravitational waves. Gravitational radiation is a prediction of General Relativity, and as such, were it to be disproved, it would falsify a prediction of a scientific theory. To say that this is not valuable would be to suggest that, for example, Michelson's experiments in search of the aether were not valuable, whereas in reality they gave supporting evidence to the idea that there is indeed no aether. At the very least, the experiment should be able to place certain restrictions on the rate of observed events. If gravitational radiation were not found, and this represented a serious contradiction with the rate of events predicted, it would be ABSOLUTELY ENORMOUS in terms of scientific relevance, and I cannot stress that enough. Something huge, somewhere in our understanding of the world, would have to be revised, be it the idea of the gravitational field, causality itself, etc. As a practicing scientist, I would almost hope that LIGO fails to see gravitational radiation, just because the scientific implications would be so unimaginably radical and weird, and force us to completely reexamine how we perceive the universe. But this subject could be argued until it reaches the realm of some very deep scientific philosophy - scientific theory is generally not viewed as being "completely true" or "completely wrong," but as a method of predicting physical phenomena, which eventually is replaced with a more accurate theory. Newtonian mechanics is not so much wrong, as it is not a good enough approximation in certain specific applications. If you want a metaphor, think about scientific progress as continuing to improve our Taylor expansion of the universe.

Though I suspect given the general tone of this article, somehow the death of GR would also please most of the contributors to this encyclopedia, as if General Relativity, a scientific theory, is somehow inherently a "liberal" idea. I'm sure that when Einstein formulated it, he envisioned it being used by Barack Obama to support a woman's legal right to terminate her pregnancy. Though, I hope for the sake of those contributors that General Relativity is either disproved, or is shown to be a "conservative" idea, because if it does adequately describe our universe, is a "liberal" idea, and God created the universe, then either God is a liberal, or he has a very weird sense of humo(u)r.

Just to get this nonsense out of the way now, I'm a registered independent. I vote, based on all of the relevant information I have been able to attain via what I believe to be credible sources, for whoever I honestly believe will be able to fulfill the duties of the office they seek, and I don't think anyone can ask any more of me than that. If any of this leads some of you to believe that I am incapable of discussing the theory of General Relativity, then I surely and sincerely have nothing but pity for you. --kfratus

: What are you talking about? The article has only one simple sentence about LIGO. Is that sentence correct or not? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:13, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

:: First, if you'll take a closer look at the talk page, you'll notice that there has been a good amount of discussion of the usefulness of LIGO, and that was what I was principally referencing. Secondly, the article in reality contains three sentences that in some way reference LIGO, albeit only one of them by name. The last sentence specifically mentions LIGO, the second sentence is clearly directly referencing LIGO without naming it, and the first claims that research involving the theory of relativity receives a disproportionate amount of funding. I would regard the first of those sentences as a matter of scientific opinion, which I addressed in my comments by pointing out how much impact LIGO could have on the entire astronomy community. The second and third sentences may not be incorrect, so much as they are worded as half truths. LIGO has been unsuccessful, or has failed, to detect graitational waves so far. To assert that LIGO has been unsuccessful in general would be entirely untrue, and is completely dependent on your notion of the "success" of the experiment, which I also addressed - LIGO has indeed managed to reach its target sensitivity, and whether or not they manage to detect gravitational waves, their results will still have a huge impact on the field of physics, which I would consider a successful experiment. --kfratus

:::Hopefully, when LIGO disproves so-called "[http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=gravity+waves gravity waves]", a relativist working on the project will be honest enough to call LIGO what it is. In this way, LIGO may end up being a very, very expensive way of '''disproving''' relativity, once and for all.
:::I doubt it, though, with all that grant money on the line. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 23:35, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: Maybe it is unfair to say that LIGO has been unsuccessful. But what about Gravity Probe B? That experiment seemed like a big expensive flop to me. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:26, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::I just want to make sure that the people here criticizing LIGO understand that the frequency range of the gravitational waves it was built to detect predict a variations in spacetime by only a factor of 10^-21. LIGO's longest vacuum tubes are 4km long. So physicists are attempting to measure a change in length approximately 1/2500th the diameter of an atomic nucleus.

:::::: Yes, that is why some people predicted that LIGO would fail. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

And to the poster who linked to youtube video of "gravity waves". Those ARE NOT gravity waves. Those are clouds.

:::::::As a passer-by stumbling upon your conversation, I never really meant to end up leaving this many posts, and I apologize if I'm violating your 90/10 rule, or anything like that. But I just wanted to clarify something that I see come up very often. I frequently run into people who have this impression that all scientists are members of some secret organization that is trying to hold knowledge from the public, and that they have their own personal reasons for trying to manipulate the body of scientific knowledge. While I cannot speak for all scientists, any of the ones that I have ever met (myself included), would be absolutely more than happy to welcome more people to our field of study. Most physicists I have met enjoy what they do, and would be very willing to pass their knowledge onto others (and one would have to admit that if we were somehow manipulating the entire body of public knowledge, we'd have to be doing a pretty good job of keeping every single scientist in the entire world quiet about the real truth - not very practical). And with respect to the comments made by BHarlan, I can assure you that most scientists would actually LOVE to disprove general relativity. In many cases, scientists are not famous because they confirm the prediction of a theory, but because they disprove one, thereby radically changing what we know about the world around us. The reason Einstein was so famous was because he disproved the Newtonian picture of the universe, not because he confirmed some prediction of it. But this is just like any other profession - think about it, if a rival of yours was successful in some way, wouldn't you be just dieing to somehow prove them wrong and rub it in their face? Scientists are people too, subject to the same personality traits as everyone else. This is why most physicists feel relatively comfortable with the scientific process - they know that if something is proposed as a theory, there will be a thousand people just itching to prove it wrong, thereby stealing the limelight for themselves. I think that if I ever found a way to disprove relativity, I'd practically have a heart attack out of excitement (and you can be sure I'd get a Nobel prize for it, too). In fact, it is already a well known fact that GR must be wrong at at least some level, because as it is formulated now, it's not compatible with some of the basic tenets of quantum mechanics. Though, I'm still pretty sure we'll see gravity waves, if you want my opinion. Gravity waves are predicted by ideas much more fundamental than GR (aka, the finite speed of light), and so GR could be be wrong, and we could still have gravity waves - as long as you define the propagating influence of gravity as a "wave," and assume that information can't travel faster than the speed of light, then there you have it, really. And with respect to the video of the clouds, those are actually "gravity waves," but of a different sort. The term comes from how the Earth's gravitational field effects atmospheric conditions. So it is the same term for two very different things, which unfortunately may lead to some confusion for some people. And with respect to Gravity Probe B, I admit that I do not know as much about that experiment, and off the top of my head would not really be able to debate it. Though if I remember correctly its data analysis is scheduled to continue into 2010, so I would hesitate to say anything until then (other than the fact that in principle, I find its goals fairly relevant - if you really wanted to test the geometrical nature of GR, you should try to confirm/disprove one of its craziest, most non-intuitive predictions - aka, frame-dragging).

:::::::But I can assure you, I have met plenty of people who are very politically conservative, and believe in gravity waves. In fact, many deeply spiritual people believe that relativity is a sign of God's existence. The basic idea goes that if relativity were not true, there would have to be some preferred reference frame, which would have to be chosen somewhat arbitrarily. But how could a divine creator just make some arbitrary choice like that? Not very elegant, if you ask me. In fact, I have heard that some people actually cry when they finally understand GR, because of what an elegant theory it is. If you want to read more about ideas like that, I definitely suggest Brian Greene's book, "Fabric of the Cosmos." If you want my honest opinion, I have yet to come across anything in my study of physics that I believe is a serious threat to the existence of some intelligent creator. From what I can gather, most physicists don't even concern themselves with such an aim - if God exists, then he exists. Our goal is to study what we can see, and make useful predictions based on that. If it's all just a result of God, then so be it. The only result will be that we've come to know Him a little better through out study of the universe and its workings. --kfratus

:::::::: The article hardly says anything about gravity waves. Are you suggesting some change to the article? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:00, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

== General Questions ==

The article suggests that Newtonian physics somehow suggest the bending of light, which is impossible according to Newtonian physics. Since a photon has zero mass, it cannot be bent by the force as described by Newton.

* Huh? I thought it was Newton who '''discovered''' the bending of light, which occurs as light enters a [[prism]]. It is because the various frequencies of light bend by different amounts that we get the [[rainbox]] effect (see [[spectrum]]). Or I have I totally forgotten my [[high-school physics]] and [[history of science]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Next point, Newton's action-at-a-distance theory of gravity seems to be taken as fact. The idea that general relativity violates this is used as a point against it. Newton himself stated, and I quote:

"It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the
mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and
affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must do, if gravitation,
...., be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason, why I
desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should
be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act
upon another, at a distance through vacuum, without the mediation of
anything else, by and through their action and force may be conveyed
from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no
man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking,
can ever fall into it."

Therefor, even the founder of classical mechanics saw action-at-a-distance as problem, so how is it in any way evidence to contradict a well tested theory?

: Oh, ignoring phenomena such as quantum entanglement, are we? --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 22:57, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
:: Actually, no. The reason that a grand unified theory is necessary is because of the discrepancies of the quantum world and the macro world. Both have been tested, neither conclusively, but evidence is in their favor. All I am saying here is that you can't use this (logically) as a point to disqualify an entire theory. Especially when you use this point when referencing a person (Newton) who had a problem with it.

::: Kindly use the signature button (10th from the left above) to "sign" your comments, so we can tell who's saying what.

::: Newton assumed nothing; he "feigned no hypotheses." Accordingly, he didn't have "a problem with it." It was his peers who could not accept it. Newton's quote above does not question "action at a distance," but is commenting on the nature of matter.

::: Many still refuse to accept action at a distance (and non-locality), as your own viewpoints demonstrate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
:::: Still refuse? As one of your relatives pointed out, there is some support for it, such as quantum entanglement, but on a large scale (say larger than the what is it now, 1 km?) past where quantum entanglement has been proven, there is no proof or any proof to suggest it should be true. And, I'm sorry, but I have to say. Don't assign my viewpoints to me sir. I will decide what I think based on fact. What I form as opinion, I will state as such. I don't understand how people can read this article with any knowledge of physics and agree with it. None of my professors, mentors, or scientists that I have met would support such statements. The fact that you are doing so proves the disgusting and twisted lengths that some people will go to in order to make established fact comply with their own super-conservative beliefs. It is people like yourselves that are ruining the republican party and make me scared for the future of America.--[[User:RobertSJ|RobertSJ]] 23:22, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

::::: So even though non-locality and action at a distance have been fully proven in laboratory experiments, you claim "there is no proof or any proof to suggest it should be true" ''beyond a certain distance''. Surely you don't think there is one set of laws for less than an arbitrary distance, and another set of laws for larger than an arbitrary distance. No, the real problem here is that some people, perhaps including yourself, do not and will not accept action at a distance regardless of the proof.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Next point, several "obscure physicists" is not the same as almost the entire community of physicists (which is the actual truth here.) Gravitational redshift perfectly explains the way that signals between earth and GPS satellites are different in time. That is how current GPS positions are calculated.

You mention LIGO at the very end and gravity waves as well. There is no prior mention. The prior mentions should explain what gravity waves are, why they are so weak, why they can probably only be detected from very massive binary systems, and why even when these massive binary systems are found the radiation should be so weak that the immense precision of LIGO and LISA are required.

Just some points on things that are not accurate or need to be clarified in order to not leave the reader with a false interpretation of scientific fact.

:Also edit, I am a physics major attending a well-respected and also conservative school (Vanderbilt). I have conducted research in physics at a national lab (ORNL), and like to keep up on this kind of thing. I am a moderate but conservative leaning voter.--[[User:RobertSJ|RobertSJ]] 23:22, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I responded in greater detail above, but let me just add that not everything you've learned is true, and not everything your professors state is true either. Hopefully you'll admit at least that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

: Photons have zero rest mass, but they are not at rest. A reference is given for the deflection of light as predicted by relativity theory. So the article seems to be correct about the bending of light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:41, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

::I wish that critics of CP would help us write [[basic physics]] articles instead of trying to "prove us wrong". Please help me finish the "[[bending of light]]" article, in accordance with what we all agree about Newton's discoveries many decades ago. Then we can discuss how to present [[quantum physics]], okay? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:04, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

== Non-Locality and Quantum Field Theory ==

There is no action at a distance, nor non-locality, in quantum mechanics nor field theory. None. You're confusing two different subjects.

First, action at a distance: True, in Newton's gravity, there is action at a distance. But this is totally different from anything to be found in QM or field theory, which have no action at a distance. All Hamiltonians in the standard models of field theory (QED, electroweak, QCD) are strictly local Hamiltonians. Forces are exerted by passing virtual bosons back and forth in space, like footballs. Interactions (like electron/photon, then photon/electron) are all 100% local.

The fact that Newton's theory assumed action at a distance (without proof) does not mean that ALL theories require action at a distance. Why should that follow? Why should modern theories be limited by Newton's unproved assumptions? Quantum field theory is immensely more accurate, measured objectively, than Newton's gravity force ever was. QED (with special relativity built in) predicted the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron accurate to one part in a TRILLION. Newton's theory was never even close to that level of accuracy! Newton could never accurately compute the orbit of Mercury or gravitational lensing to one part in a trillion! Or billion. By objective criteria, field theory is more accurate than Newton.

Second, non-locality: non-locality is not the same as action at a distance. Action at a distance requires exertion of a FORCE. Nothing in QM is in fact non-local. The only thing non-local about QM is the Copenhagen interpretation of wavefunction collapse, which is not a part of the equations, but a way of visualizing the effect of observation a QM system.

You have mentioned quantum entanglement as a supposed example of non-locality. Entanglement, and phenomena like quantum teleportation, do not exert FORCES, so they are not actiona at a distance! Further, quantum entanglement can never be used to transmit information faster than the speed of light. Hence, there's no contradiction between QM and SR. Field theory has SR built in. There is no experiment, in quantum teleportation nor EPR paradox, Bell's inequality etc., that can possibly transmit information FTL. Describe one experiment, just one entanglement experiment, that can supposedly transmit info FTL. I dare you. Just one.

So what is this supposed "non-locality" then? The Copenhagen interpretation of QM says that the wavefunction should "collapse" (revert to a single eigenfunction) everywhere simultaneously when an observation is made. If this really happened, it would be a problem for SR, because in SR, simultaneity is relative to the observer. But, two problems. First, this supposed "collapse" can never be observed and can never be used to transmit info FTL. Second, the Copenhagen interpretation is deeply flawed because it never defined what an "observation" was. It is no longer the most popular interpretation; among physicists, the Many Worlds interpretation is more popular now, because it precisely defines what observation means, in terms of quantum decoherence, so MWI connects better to macroscopic thermodynamics.

If you want to (groan) argue the point, you can argue that Copenhagen and Many Worlds are both non-local, but so what? They're visualizations, not equations, and certainly not forces, nor "actions"!! When neither visualization scheme can be used to transmit info FTL, nor exert a force, this is no problem for SR at all!

The only big problem here is that field theory is incompatible with GR, not SR. True. Everybody knows this is the biggest problem in physics. No one knows whether the flaw is in GR, field theory, or both. However, either way, there is no problem between field theory and SR. Field theory has SR built in, and is (objectively measured) the most precise scientific theory in history. If you argue this, I'll swamp you with experimental proofs. [[User:Cuddlytakun|Cuddlytakun]] 15:53, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

:"Cuddlytakun", you've obviously made up your mind that [[action at a distance]] and [[non-locality]] must not exist. But all evidence is against your view. Would you support spending another billion dollars of taxpayer money looking for [[gravitons]] to support your view? I hope not.

:How about this: raise ''private'' capital for searching for gravitons to support your philosophy. Then we'll see how many really agree with you, rather than just going along for the ride.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:10, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

Au contrere mon frere, you made up your mind that action at a distance is the only type force possible. I have nowhere said action at a distance is impossible. I've said Newton never proved, could not prove, it was the ONLY possibility. I suppose it's possible for both to exist. In field theory this would mean a Hamiltonian that is part local and part non-local. Sometimes the idea is kicked around. Mathematically, non-local Hamiltonians are a pain in the ass to compute with, and counterintuitive, but theoretically possible.

Why have you decided that action at a distance is the only possibility? Just because Newton's theory assumed it without proof, this does not mean all forces in nature must likewise be action at a distance. Think about this: suppose you and I are ice-skating. I toss you a football. When I throw the ball, reaction force pushes me backward. When you catch it, the collision pushes you away from me. Basic repulsive force at a distance, composed of local pairwise interactions. All forces in the standard model (electrodynamic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear; that is electroweak and QCD) work that way. The footballs are virtual bosons of spin 1.

"All evidence is against your view"? What evidence? What are you talking about!? "Your view"? Hell of a dismissive thing to say. It's not "my view", it's the view of everybody in physics, including Weinberg and Wilczek. Do you even know the meaning of the quotes you lifted out of Wilczek and Weinberg's speeches!? Seriously, do you have any evidence in mind, any at all, or are you just blowing smoke?

So you drag funding issues into it. As you know, the Europeans paid for the Large Hadron Collider so all the geniuses are moving to Europe. The last smart person to leave America, please turn out the lights.

But don't dismiss field theory as "philosophy". You're playing word games because you can't back up your statements with facts. These are facts: with field theory, you can predict the experimental value of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron to one part in a trillion. Of the muon, to one part in a billion. You can compute the mass of protons and neutrons and mesons from first principles, a priori! Which is an inherently relativistic computation (m = E/c2, with E from local QCD.) The Z boson's existence and mass were predicted before its discovery via electroweak theory, which is an entirely local Hamiltonian. Newton's gravity could never compute anything to an accuracy of one part in a billion, or compute masses of particles a priori, or predict new particles before they're observed! Why do you call field theory philosophy, but Newton's theory is science? Explain the definition of "philosophy" you're using here. Word games!
[[User:Cuddlytakun|Cuddlytakun]] 23:55, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

: Your "word-to-substance ratio" is very high; you are likely a [[liberal]]. See point 2 in [[liberal style]].

:I beg you to open your mind and learn here, for your own sake. Look at how you refused to address my simple point. Instead you cling to your perception of what you think others believe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

== Proof ==

The proofs for relativity are both mathematical and physical, yet this article tries to say otherwise. If someone doesn't know them then can I please put them in without them being edited out within minutes?

--[[User:Unlikelyconvert|Unlikelyconvert]] 13:14, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

: You're not going to push anything that is false here. Make your very best edit first and let's see how that looks, before you spend a lot of time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:20, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

I haven't tried to push anything, I've made a few edits already, corrected a couple of scientific mistakes, and said this. Can you please open your mind for just 10 minutes and look at both sides of this debate? Look at the overwhelming consensus on relativity, and then I will look at any source you give me forwarding your viewpoint. As I've said in another talk page, I am willing to change my views if you can prove them.
--[[User:Unlikelyconvert|Unlikelyconvert]] 13:27, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

: My mind is open, and I've invited you to make your very best edit first. Or, alternatively, state it here. Keep your word-to-substance ratio low, however. See [[liberal style]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:30, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Looking above, many people have stated the mathematical proofs in their different forms, yet you dismissed most of them almost out of hand. And I am not a liberal in respect to your definition, I am the (in my experience) the more common kind, the kind who will accept evidence. And you don't seem that open minded, as when i offered to put in proofs you started by saying I was trying to spread falsehoods. Proof makes something true, not false.

--[[User:Unlikelyconvert|Unlikelyconvert]] 13:34, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

: I'm going to move on to more substantive edits. Your word-to-substance ratio has been very high.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

::I'm going to ban uc if he doesn't stop trying to make people change their minds. If he wants to provide information about a novel, unproven or untested theory he's welcome to do that. He can even write about a theory which we conservatives know is false, provided that he doesn't try to present it as '''valid'''.

::Our policy is to label advocacy as such. Say, for example, that Professor X asserts theory Y because of Z. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:22, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-06-15T16:00:39Z

Lemonpeel:

== "Beautiful, but not robust" Quote ==

The beginning of this article provides a quote from Steven Weinberg on quantum field theory saying that QFT is "beautiful, but not robust." The way the quote is given here makes it sound like this comment was intended as a criticism of QFT. I looked up the source of the quote, and it appears (to me at least) that the quote was not meant as a criticism at all. I think what Weinberg was saying is that QFT has to satisfy a lot of strong properties, such as gauge invariance and renormalizeablility. It is in that sense that QFT is not robust. But the point I think Weinberg is making is that this gives us hope for finding a grand unified theory, since we don't have much wiggle room in the kinds of theories we can propose.

Given that, I propose the quote be removed, since its likely meaning is out of context with the way the quote is being used. --[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 12:00, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

== Mass Increase Section ==

In the subsection on mass increase, it is claimed that the abandonment of the relativistic mass point of view "undermines" the famous equation <math>E=mc^2</math>. I find this statement rather odd. After all, the broader principle underlying this equation is that if <math>p</math> is the 4-momentum vector of a particle, then the magnitude of <math>p</math> is the same in all inertial reference frames and equal (in units where c = 1) to the rest mass of the particle. This remains true regardless of whether one uses the language of relativistic mass or not. As currently written, this subsection is liable to confuse anyone who is unfamiliar with the subject.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 20:41, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

: Go ahead and fix it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:27, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

:Done.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 13:37, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

== Great article ==

1) Superb avoidance of difficult science in a scientific article. Best not to be confusing.
2) Nice attention on Eddington rather than the theory itself.
3) Good mind reading regarding Eddington's dreams.
4) Nice work ignoring the facts about things that have been inventing using GR such as GPS

And rather than simply be sarcastic, I will work on a better article over the weekend. One that actually discusses the science.

== Special and general relativity ==

This article seems to combine the two. They are different ideas and need to be distinguished. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:21, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Agreed. Separate articles would make more sense. I don't have time to do the necessary work right now, but if no one else does it I'm sure I'll get to it eventually. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:11, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:If someone will split the pages, I'll help flesh them out.--[[User:ZLewis|ZLewis]] 10:42, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Moral Relativism line needs to go. ==

I have never heard anyone advocating moral relativism use either of the theories of relativity to do it. Actually, the only people who I've ever heard that from are relativity deniers like Fred Hutchison. Not only does that show a grave misunderstanding of the scientific theory, but also a misunderstanding of the phrase "moral relativism". In any case, you can't draw moral implications from scientific theories. When someone says that Einstein's theory of relativity implies some kind of moral relativism, they're really saying "The geometric theory of gravity allows me to internalize my moral decisions".

That line is ridiculous and irrelevant, and needs to disappear.

:I don't like it ''at all'' in its present form, but the word "relativity" is thrown around casually ''quite a lot'' and there might be justification for a section with a title like "what relativity is not."

:E.g. [http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/06/relativity.html Scott Adams], author of the Dilbert comic strip, says "Einstein’s great insight was assuming reality was not fixed, and that everything was relative to the observer" and goes on to say "I have extended that thinking to people..."

::I think using Scott Adams as a reference or a jumping-off point for discussion really constitutes holding one's self to a dismally low standard. He's posted his own theories of physics to his blog a few times, freely admitting that he knows they're wrong and that he just takes pride in the fact that the layman can't successfully challenge them. In all honesty, moral relativism is a perfectly valid subject for an article, but it doesn't have anything to do with physics other than an unfortunate overlap of words and definitions in English. Putting this section in just makes the authors look like they're bristling for a fight. [[User:Willforpresident|Willforpresident]] 21:25, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:What follows is interesting if not very profound, but dragging Einstein into it is not helpful.

:It just goes to show the value of jargon. When scientists give something a simple name like "relativity," people assume they understand it and misapply it. I'm just thankful that people aren't very familiar with mathematics or we'd be hearding about crop circles in Galois fields. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:50, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::I like the "what relativity is not" idea. Might be worth pointing out that relativity in physics didn't start with SR; there is such a thing as Galilean relativity, after all. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:57, 25 February 2007 (EST)

This line must go. It is not relevant to the article. Have a disambiguation page for relativity. The citation is completely incorrect. The website http://www.moralrelativity.com/about1.html says nothing about general relativity influencing moral relativity. This article says 'Relativity has generated a huge following by advocates of moral relativism,' but the website http://www.moralrelativity.com/about1.html does not make any mention of this statement, therefore it is improperly cited. Citations are supposed to support claims, and this one does not. (Read the website for yourself). Also, just because relativity is a homophone in this case doesn't mean it belongs in an article of the (general) theory of relativity. ''Please make a disambiguation page'' because this is clearly in the wrong place.

I removed the moral relativity part from this article and placed it in a new article called [[Moral relativity]]. Relativity here is clearly just a homophone, and moral relativity is irrelevant to special or general relativity. To illustrate my point, see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativity. Relativity in physics has a special meaning. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 00:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, moral relativism is a big reason for the political support of types of relativity. It's obviously relevant to this article, and the above criticism only reinforces the need to include a reference. We can debate how to say it, but censorship is not an option here. Go to Wikipedia for that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, then that can go into the [[Moral relativity]] article, which now exists. There is no support for your claim. Neither is there a need for political support for a scientific theory. The way you describe it, moral relativity references this theory of relativity, not the other way around. The theory of relativity neither relies on moral relativity in any explanation of it or needs it to be mentioned for a complete treatment of the theory, and therefore it is inappropriate to add it here. I direct you again to the dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativity in order to clarify that relativity in this sense has specific meaning in the domain of physics, and arbritrary theories that share the word are not in this domain nor are related in any concrete way, simply being homophones. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 18:40, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Someone added more about the moral relativity bit, so I put it in the right place: in the article on [[Moral relativity]]. The section says, "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views," which is about moral relavitity and how they use the theory of relativity, not how the the theory of relativity involves moral relativity. I challenge the writer again to find a work on the physics theory that metions moral relativity at all. Just because a page mentions the theory of relativity does not make it a legitimate part of the theory itself, and as such, does not belong in this article. If anything, the [[Moral relativity]] article should make a link to this article, not the other way around. I am not sure the agenda here, but it seems that someone would like to promote moral relativity by attaching it to unrelated articles. Please add your information to the correct article in the correct place. Again, here is the link: [[Moral relativity]]. Go crazy. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

ASchlafly, you added the line "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views" and gave a citation afterwards. If you read the page that you cite, you will see that the author merely uses Special Relativity to demonstrate how moral relativism works. He does not "seize" on the theory and does not use it to "legitimize" his view. Can you find a better source please? (or remove the sentence)

: I can't tell who or when this comment was made, because it lacks the signature (use the signature button above). But I will look for more sites about to support my statement, which should be easy to find. Frankly, I've never heard anyone doubt the statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps you've been listening the wrong people. No reputable explanations of relativity mention moral relativity. Find a reputable one. Don't look for moral relativity explanations that include physics relativity, because that information belongs in [[Moral relativity]], not here. You are researching the wrong topic. Repeat: look for information about the physical theory of relativity and see if you can find one that mentions moral relativity (not pages that talk about moral relativity and mention physical relativity). Furthermore, anyone can set up a web page and say whatever they want, so web pages are generally not a very good resource (unless it's the physics department website at MIT, for instance, because it has credibility in this field). You should find reputable scientific texts. And, please, stick the topic at hand: physical science topics needs physical science resources. There is ample room in the [[Moral relativity]] article to discuss. In fact, I'm surprised you aren't contributing more to that article (especially compared to how much you try add to in this article), since you seem to be very interested in the topic and are more knowledgable about it than physical relativity. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I've received no response. Can I remove the paragraph now? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 16:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::By the way, I checked the history, and MatteeNeutra made the uncited statement above about needing a better source or removing the sentence. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 17:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== <math>e=mc^2</math> not "attributed" to Einstein. ==

<math>e=mc^2</math> isn't just "attributed" to Einstein. When someone says "attributed", they typically mean that someone is given credit for an idea somewhat apocryphally. Einstein obtained the relation in his Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper, in which, from the Lorentz transformations, he obtained the relations:

<math>E = \sqrt{c^4m^2+p^2c^2}</math>
and then, as <math>p\to0</math>:

<math>E=mc^2</math>.

And these bizarre polemics are undermining what little credibility this encyclopedia has. Sneering at Einstein and glorifying the contributions of Ponicare makes all of the sense of arguing over whether Leibniz or Newton invented calculus, particularly since there are very palpable differences between Einstein and Ponicare's treatments of the subjects. And, I see someone has removed the "there is no evidence for the general theory", but I'm sure it will be back by this afternoon. That's ever weirder -- how on earth can someone say that "there is no evidence" and then, in the same article, link to black holes?

I'm not going to go back to that article on [[Dirac Notation]] to fill up all of those links with articles until I'm sure one of the administrators isn't going to replace them with accusations of quantum mechanics being tantamount to the Kabbalah, or something equally stupid. (unsigned)

: It is a fact that Poincare published E=mc2 and most of the rest of special relativity before Einstein. Maybe you think that this is sneering or glorifying, but it is a fact, and there is no serious dispute about it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:17, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: This is true, but what Poincare described was a specific case of E=mc2. An experimental result showed that there was momentum when a body ejected EM radiation, but the mass was unaccounted for. Poincare described the mass of the EM as m=E/c2. Einstein derived this formula from more fundamental assumptions, the speed of light is absolute, etc. This is why his work is so famous. In fact, in all of science, nothing belongs to any one person, even though they may get credit, but are supposedly discovered. Also do not forget that Einstein also published General Relativity.
::Furthermore, while Poincare regarded it as superfluous, scientists of the day were still trying to work with the luminescent ether. Einstein's work proved this unnecessary.
::Again this is a lesson in science. We are always trying to compress and refine our science. Einstein, while he of course drew on other's work and surely knew of Poincare's m=E/c2 paper, his work was more refined and simpler, deriving many principles, Poincare's and new ones, from a few fundamental principles. Poincare published a paper about a month before Einstein with similar work, but in science, no one person makes a discover. Don't forget, Newton has his Hooke. But like Newton, it was Einstein's derivation and formalizations that worked better. (unsigned)

::: Yes, Poincare described was a specific case of E=mc2, but so did Einstein. Einstein did not foresee particle annihilation or nuclear energy. Poincare's description of the ether as superfluous is nearly identical to Einstein's.
::: How was Einstein's work on special relativity any more refined, simpler, or better working? I deny this. Poincare showed a better understanding of the theory than Einstein. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Don't ask me, ask Lorentz. http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm

::::: OK, I looked at your link. The first thing I saw was a claim that the 1919 eclipse proved the General Relativity. We now know that eclipse proved no such thing. So much for the credibility of that link.

::::: The link does show that Lorentz and Einstein were patting each other on the back. That's fine, but it suggests a lack of objectivity towards the odd man out, Poincare. This dispute cannot be resolved by self-interested party, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Can't get much more credible than a publication by Lorentz on Gutenberg, bud. It may be dated, but it is closer to the date of Einstein's work. As far as I see you, you have the burden to prove your claim as much as everyone else has to support the opposite claim. Where is your evidence of credible sources? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 18:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Old version ==

I was just looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_Relativity&oldid=15341 an old version of this page], and the absurdity of the "scientific" claims made, combined with the low quality of the writing and blatant inaccuracies, make the article, quite frankly, almost intellectually offensive. I realize that this has since been rectified, but if this is the quality that is to be expected of Conservapedia articles, then I do not blame those who dismiss it as a failed attempt. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:12, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: be specific in your statements if you expect a response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I find the content reverted to in the above edit to be quite disturbing.

* The General Theory of Relativity does ''not'' reject Isaac Newton's "God-given" theory of gravitation, it simply provides an explanation for ''why'' it functions.

: that was obviously vandalism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* It is most certainly ''not'' a problem that the General Theory of Relativity is based upon mathematics as opposed to empirical evidence, as seems to be insinuated by this version.

: mathematics is mathematics, and unless there is empirical evidence it is not science.

::Mathematics describes physics. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* Albert Einstein's work ''did'' contribute to the development of the nuclear bomb. ''E=mc2'' describes the duality between matter and energy, the principle upon which the nuclear bomb, and all other nuclear devices, functions.

: nope. ''E=mc2'' is a statement of relativistic effect, not atomic power.

::Yes, but the mass lost in the nuclear reaction is converted to energy, which is the fundamental power of the weapon. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* "Nothing useful has even been built based on the theory of relativity." Sure, sure… nuclear power plants aren't useful at ''all'', are they? GPSs aren't useful ''at all'', are they?

: GPSs are useful, but they weren't built using General Relativity.
:: Without realativity describing gravitation redshift, the timing for the GPS satelite would be off by about 45 microseconds/day. Further reading on the matter at http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:08, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: I think Lorenzian relativity accounts for the GPS time dilation more precisely. But that isn't really my point. The GPS clocks are updated based on communications between the satellites and ground stations, not based on any theory. If you claim that GPS is built based on relativity, then you should be able to prove your case with an historical reference. No such proof exists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: That observation does not support the false claim that GPS is based on General Relativity. Other theories predict a dilation of time, and satellites are obviously synchronized based on communication, not theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::No, they have GR corrections built in. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::Can you please cite an alternate theory that accounts for the time dilation experiecned by the GPS satelites along with the math that matches that of relativity? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:17, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* "Most conservatives are skeptical since science is supposed to be about finding proof before a theory becomes a fact, not after." And ''where'' are the statistics that show this?

: Don't know who wrote that statement, but it's a correct statement of what science means.

::I was refering to the claim that "''most'' conservatives are skeptical since science…" (emphasis added) [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* Gravitons are not predicted by general relativity; much to the contrary, the two have not been reconciled.

* It is currently believed that space does indeed have curvature, what is described as "negative" curvature, giving it a saddle-like shape overall, but curvature nonetheless.

The denial of demonstrated principles because they do not coincide with your worldview is not scientific, it's purely reactionary nonsense. I'm not impressed by Examples of Bias in Wikipedia citing Wikipedians taking issue with this as a "bias". [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 16:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: OK, fine, no one is trying to impress you. The Wikipedia entry was biased and demonstrably false, as explained in [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Oh, and I mean no offense to Aschlafly. Although I do not necessarily agree with all his views, I do not wish to disparage him, and I recognize his value as a contributor. I've reconciled with him on this issue, and want to make clear that I do not mean this comment as an attack. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: I just realized that I had somehow managed to fail to see that Aschlafly's edit was a simple revert to a previous version. I don't necessarily agree with the decision, and I don't retract the points with which I take issue, but Aschlafly is not responsible for the content, and I'm sorry for insinuating that he was. I've changed some of my comment to reflect the fact that the edit was simply a revert. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Merge with draft==

There is a draft for this article [[Theory of relativity/draft | here]]. Surely it's about time these two were merged together or at the very least decide which one is to be continued. I will continue to work on Theory of Relativity/draft as I feel it is a much clearer article. What does everyone else think? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 07:33, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: Your draft article has some great stuff in it. Would you like to merge it into the main article now? However, please do not delete anything from the main article as part of the merge. Thanks and a good Easter to you.

: By the way, it appears that relativity is taught in college without using the concept of relativistic mass. But let's go with your relativistic mass as you wrote it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, I'll take a shot at a merge now. Relativistic mass is quite important to the theory, as from it we can determine that matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== This isn't Wikipedia ==

Teji, don't delete facts here that liberals don't like. This isn't Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Please read my explanation above. I don't think anyone likes unsourced information that is in the wrong topic. Please contribute to [[Moral relativity]]. I had to create that page while someone was adding information about it to the this topic. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Furthermore, that link is about moral relativity, not special relativity. It belongs in [[Moral relativity]]. It is shocking that someone so interested in that topic didn't even think to make the article. In fact, I started that article! [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:12, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here is what I said above in case you didn't catch it: ''No reputable explanations of relativity mention moral relativity. Find a reputable one. Don't look for moral relativity explanations that include physics relativity, because that information belongs in Moral relativity, not here. You are researching the wrong topic. Repeat: look for information about the physical theory of relativity and see if you can find one that mentions moral relativity (not pages that talk about moral relativity and mention physical relativity). Furthermore, anyone can set up a web page and say whatever they want, so web pages are generally not a very good resource (unless it's the physics department website at MIT, for instance, because it has credibility in this field). You should find reputable scientific texts. And, please, stick the topic at hand: physical science topics needs physical science resources. There is ample room in the Moral relativity article to discuss. In fact, I'm surprised you aren't contributing more to that article (especially compared to how much you try add to in this article), since you seem to be very interested in the topic and are more knowledgable about it than physical relativity. Teji 13:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)''

:I find it interesting that when you cannot support your information you resort to name-calling and statements about wikipedia. Does this site want credible and accurate information or information with an agenda? Because if it is the latter, please make a statement to that effect in your policy pages, or would that make this website too credible and accurate? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Teji, the statement does not claim that the theory of relativity supports moral relativity, but merely that supporters of moral relativity seized upon the theory of relativity to justify their views. "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views.[3] Historians such as Paul Johnson wrote about how the theory of relativity caused a sea change, justified or not, in 20th century thought." That statement is correct and should not be deleted. Read it, and reread it, and only comment further here if you can provide something that specifically refutes that statement. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:It is in the wrong place. The statement is clearly about [[Moral relativity]]. This statement is also correct: ''Jesus is God'', does it belong in this article? No. Here is another correct statement: ''morality is "what is the good" and ethics is "how do I practice it"'' from the moral relativity site. Does it belong in this artcle? Certainly not. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Correctness is not enough. There also must be accuracy. Information about [[Moral relativity]] belongs in that article. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Maybe you should change the title to just "Relativity". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, how do I do that? We could also make a disambiguation page, but I don't know how to do that either. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::RSchlafly, you've missed the point. This article is about the Theory of Relativity as a scientific theory. As such, the article should not talk about Moral relativity which, apart from sharing using the same word, is absolutely nothing at all to do with the Theory of Relativity. I also, do not think that the sentence about Moral relativity should be put on this article. At the very most a link at the bottom of this article to Moral relativity, but you may as well link it to a page on forestry for all the relevance it has. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 05:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Exactly, if you want to speak about moral relativists using special or general relativity as validation for their philosophy then it should be placed in an articlea bout moral relativism. It should '''not''' be here. Perhaps - perhaps - it could go in a section on the influence of the theory of relativity on 20th century culture.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why was quote about Dicke removed? ==

I added this quote about the Francis Dicke's theory. Aschalfy, why did you remove it without any comments? It is from the same time magazine article that is already cited in this article. It clarifies why Dicke's theory is less professionally accepted! Please read the article yourself. It shows that Einstein's theory was closer than Dicke's.

''But the J.P.L. experimenters reduced the margin of error to 4% or less by locating the distant spacecraft within 100 ft. of their actual position. Thus, when they calculated that the signal to Mariner was slowed down by 204 millionths of a second on its round trip, '''they dealt the Brans-Dicke theory a sharp if not decisive blow'''. Their measurement was only 4 millionths of a second off the Einsteinian prediction, but 18 millionths of a second off the Brans-Dicke figure.'' http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html

This is the same article that that is cited for the statement ''Physicist Robert Dicke of Princeton University was a prominent critic[7]''. The same article that shows why Robert Dicke's theory is not accepted among scientists. Dicke suffered not just because he criticized Einstein's theory, but also because his theory was not as accurate. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Time magazine is not an authority on whether Dicke's theory is better than Einstein's. Our [[rules]] are very clear not to cite journalists as authorities beyond their expertise. A scientific citation that I added shows that Dicke's theory is held in high regard to this day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The JPL isn't?

::: You've got to do better than that if you want a response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: And a link from the JPL http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/70s/release_1970_0566.html --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That's an old self-serving press release about only one study. My footnote about relativity, citing a renaissance in Dicke's theory, is more recent and more comprehensive, and is based on a astrophysics encyclopedia. So your cite is not appropriate.

:::: And another article http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/9404/dicke.html about Dicke's critique of relativity and where it failed to produce a better answer. Tests included sodium lines in the sun, distance to the moon, and precession of Mercury. I do not believe that it is fair to say that the ''theory'' is held in high regard today. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll take a look at this. I must say, however, that any article that starts out by calling its opponent a "crank" lacks credibility. But this cite is worth including to reflect the political bias against Dicke, resulting in his being denied the Nobel Prize.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::It actually specifically says that Dicke was not a "crank." [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Ah, yes. The author charitably concedes that Dicke himself was not a crank, just anyone who supported Dicke's view was.

::::: This article, which I'm reading now, is incredibly biased and one-sided. It declares the "General Theory" to be possibly the "greatest single achievement in physics ... of all time." And the author states his extremely biased view before telling us about testing results. Too bad this conflicts with the encyclopedia I cite in the content page. The value of this article is to show how intolerant supporters of the "General Theory" are of any criticism, including that by Dicke.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: If Dicke's results were as good or better than General Relativity, then there would be no issue at all. It also addresses reference #8 about not getting a Nobel Prize - that is because the prize is for discovery, not interpretations. He wasn't a theoretician and thus didn't have other theories and discoveries. The individual Dicke is held with high regard in the community - his theory is not (though it is respected in developing the framework for relativistic events). I am curious to see a citation that shows his theory as being respected for the results it gives. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::: Also the article you misuse by taking the whole renaissance statement out of says this in the same paragraph before your quote!
::::::::''Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time.''
::::::: [[User:Teji|Teji]] 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Muon experiment from another point of view ==

From the point of view of the muon in the experiment mentioned, time is not slowed down, but rather distance is compressed. So instead of dilating time 5x across 10km of travel at relativistic speed, the muon saw that space had compressed from 10km to 2km (also 5x) and it was still traveling that distance. Thus, the same result - just different perspectives. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:50, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ref: Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was never given a Nobel Prize. ==

I would like to remove this reference. Nobel Prizes are given for discoveries and advancements. Dicke was an experimentalist - not a theorist. He didn't make discoveries or advancements but rather proved or disproved what the theorists came up with. As such, the work he did was not something that was noted by those nominating for the Nobel Prize. Likewise, you won't see a book critic get a Nobel Prize for literature, no matter how good of a critic he or she may be. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:02, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: Given that there has been no comment on this in opposition, I am removing the reference until someone can dispute the question of if any of Dicke's work was the type for which a Nobel Prize would have been given. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:46, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: I'm reverting your change. Experimentalists win the Nobel Prize all the time. A prize was given to someone else for work Dicke was doing. In fact, experimentalists probably win the prize more than theorists. The deletion of that sentence is for liberal purposes, and we don't allow that here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Government support of relativity research problems ==

The section on government support of relativity research needs a big re-write, but it needs to be clear what is intended first. There are several specific complaints which seem to have been jumbled together:
#LIGO was a failure, and the money could have been spent elsewhere.
#Too much money is spent on string theory and similar theories.
#The government does not support research into (unspecified) alternate theories.

#This is just liberal crybabying. Not all experiments work, and you can't know ahead of time which ones will. Most such complaints about too much money being spent on some experimental program are based on the idea of government as sugar-daddy, and whining when sugar-daddy likes someone else best.
#This complaint is more legitimate, as there are serious claims that string theory is not a scientific theory. However, this complaint doesn't belong in this article, because string theory is not relativity; it's an attempt to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics. String theory would replace general relativity, if a coherent theory were formulated, and then tested.
#This complaint seems ridiculous, as the government has funded plenty of tests to verify general relativity; any experimenter who wants to test an alternate theory can devise a test which would produce one result if GR is correct, and another if the alternate theory is true, and ask for funding for a test to verify GR.

On the other hand, perhaps the section could be deleted altogether. [[User:Ultramontanist|Ultramontanist]] 02:02, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== Relativistic mass ==
This paragraph is nonsense:
: 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. But mass is not a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is unacceptable.

The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is. Some don't like the term "relatvistic mass", but for other reasons.

This is also nonsense:
:In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
::1. It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.
:: 2. The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
:: 3. The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

This is not a restatement. Relativity says masses cannot for faster than light. Probably not information either, but that is another principle. Parts 2 and 3 are confusing and misleading, at best. Relativity teaches that there are no inertial frames in the universe. The laws of physics apply throughout the universe. They apply whether there is acceleration or not. But special relativity has more to do with inertial frames.

I suggest getting rid of these "layman's terms". They aren't. They don't clarify anything for anybody. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:29, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== GPS edit ==

Bayes, your claim that GPS is based on the Theory of General Relativity is not correct. GPS synchronization can be done directly, and has never relied on the theory. Your edits should be reverted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:My apologies. I didn't mean to edit recklessly; I thought I was correcting a typo. In fact, the [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html source cited by that sentence] ''before'' I made my edit (and many other sources as well) indicate that relativistic corrections are, in fact, taken into account by GPS receivers. Clocks on the satellites run at different rates than those on the ground due to the fact that they are at a higher altitude, where gravity is weaker; hence the need for a correction for gravitational time dilation, as predicted by general relativity. Yes, that means that clocks in Denver tick slightly faster than clocks in New York. I would be happy to look at any sources you can provide that show how GPS keeps accurate time without those corrections.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:30, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Your citation is to a silly, unsupported and off-hand remark by a professor of astronomy. GPS was built by engineers in the 1970s, who would not have even attempted to calculated the time dilation using relativity. There would be no reason to rely on relativity, since the clocks can be and were synchronized more directly, more simply and more accurately by communicating with them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:09, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::1. Let me reiterate that the citation was there before I made my edit. The previous version denied that relativistic corrections are necessary, and then cited a source to the contrary. Your recent edit makes a similar claim, but cites a source that doesn't delve deeply into technical aspects of how GPS actually works, and is therefore irrelevant to the claim. 
:::2. You can dismiss the citation in question if you like, but it seems that the overwhelming majority of experts disagree; consider [http://www.aticourses.com/global_positioning_system.htm 1] [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp 2] [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf 3], which I doubt would be considered "silly, unsupported and off-hand remark[s]." 
:::3. GPS designers in the 1970s certainly knew about relativistic effects. Here's an exerpt from [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf 3]: 
:::[B]efore the first GPS satellite was launched in 1977, although it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require such a relativistic offset, there was uncertainty as to its magnitude, and even its sign. So correcting frequency synthesizers were built into the clocks, spanning a large enough range around the nominal 10.23 MHz clock frequency to encompass all possibilities. After the satellite's cesium atomic clock was turned on, it was operated for three weeks to measure its rate. The frequency shift measured during this initial period was found to be 4.425 parts per ten billion, agreeing with the relativistic calculation to better than 1%. 
:::4. Yes, communication with the satellites is possible. That doesn't change the fact that satellite clocks run at different rates than ground-based clocks, which would result in huge errors if the satellite clock frequencies weren't compensated for time dilation effects.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:17, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== Criticism of LIGO ==

The criticism of LIGO under the heading "Government funding..." should be viewed in context. The observatories are not yet operating at their maximum level of precision. The usual procedure when building large projects like this is to make sure they work at more imprecise levels, and then "tune" them closer and closer to their limits. It isn't surprising that LIGO has not yet detected gravitational waves, and the consensus is that such waves will be detected in the future. The [http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html cource cited] for that criticism even mentions that physicists are "confident" that LIGO will be successful. After all, the NSF doesn't shell out hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money on a coin flip; they were/are convinced that getting results is a slam dunk.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:48, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

: Hope springs eternal. I'm afraid you sound like an oil-well driller (wildcatter) who, after encountering one dry well after another in a region, says "just spend a little more money and drill again!"

: LIGO has been a disappointment so far, and there is no sign of success right around the corner. At some point accountability is in order, even if more money is to be spent searching gravity waves. Realize that this search has been ongoing for 100 years, without any detection. How many more years are necessary?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:12, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::While I fully agree that accountability for all major budget items is in order at some point, I don't think the oil-driller analogy is valid in this context. LIGO is still far from its designed sensitivity, as mentioned [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJM-4B5R97X-F&_user=1010281&_handle=V-WA-A-W-VB-MsSAYVA-UUW-U-AAVUWVWVAB-AABDYWBWAB-CEYDYDUEB-VB-U&_fmt=summary&_coverDate=01%2F21%2F2004&_rdoc=15&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%235314%232004%23994829998%23476198%21&_cdi=5314&view=c&_acct=C000050264&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1010281&md5=6a930932559a96137a8b6aafdb2d9372 here]. Plans are already underway to do go beyond merely detecting gravitational waves to doing astrophysics with them. Furthermore, detection of gravitational waves requires extreme sensitivity that can only be achieved with modern technology. Serious efforts to detect them didn't begin until the 1960s, when Joseph Weber built his bar detectors, and even then the scientific consensus was that his detectors weren't sensitive enough. Some scientific advances just have to wait for technology to allow their discovery. Tell you what, if LIGO is considered a failure in 10 years, I owe you a Coke.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:40, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::It's been nearly 2 years since your message above, and LIGO has been operational for nearly 7 years. Do you really insist on waiting a full 10 years (after spending a billion dollars) before allowing some accountability? LIGO soaked up a ton of research money that could have been spent on promising technology and potential cures.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

== Other issues ==
There are some other aspects of this article that I would like to consider adding to or changing.
*A fair amount of text is dedicated to Eddington's findings and not many other astronomical observations. Eddington published his results in 1919; obviously, since then, there have been many others who have improved on his observations.
*The "Ostensible Paradoxes" section should be heavily altered or removed; there aren't any paradoxes listed there. First, the SR postulates don't offer any opinion on whether physical constants have had the same value throughout the history of the universe; they state that all inertial observers get the same answer when they measure the speed of light. Second, there are several ways to measure wave velocity; some of the most common are [[group velocity]] and [[phase velocity]]. Both types of velocities can exceed the speed of light (''c'') without violating special relativity. However, the energy velocity and information velocity do not exceed ''c'', also in accordance with SR. There is nothing mysterious or sinister going on here; these concepts are addressed or at least mentioned in many undergraduate courses. Third, the universal constant ''c'' is the speed of light ''in vacuum''; the speed of light ''in materials'' is less than than ''c'' since the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of materials are different than those of vacuum. That means that matter can travel faster than light ''in a material'' without violating SR; try Googling [[Cerenkov radiation]].--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:28, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'm concerned about the use of some citations, which seem to be misrepresented in order to discredit relativity. For instance:
:*The Economist article cited does not attack relativity; it's a discussion of how GR is being tested to its limits, like any other theory. If any improved theory of gravity is found, GR is likely to be a useful subset of it, in the same way that Newtonian gravity is a useful subset of GR. And anyway, I thought non-scientific sources [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_relativity&diff=prev&oldid=95688 weren't supposed to used] in these situations.
:*The new cite for the statement ''There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views'' is an opinion piece about how moral relativists hijacked scientific relativity for their own purposes. The cite doesn't make that claim, and it doesn't show any data to support it. Frankly, I'd be very surprised if any such correlation existed. Even IF that kind of correlation existed, it doesn't belong in a scientific article.

:The overall tone of the article seems to try to convince the reader to be skeptical of relativity. It appears to me that such skepticism is ideologically motivated, e.g., ''Although the liberally biased Wikipedia contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries...'', ''The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project...'', ''There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views''. I don't fully understand the motivation, but it bears repeating that good science (of which relativity is a part) is independent of ideology.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:54, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:: You're not the first to deny a [[liberal bias]] in science. But surely you would agree that the following areas of science, and perhaps nearly of all science, are susceptible to political bias:

**[[global warming]]
**nuclear energy
**the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]
**claims of extraterritorial life
**demands for government funding of science

::--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I absolutely agree that deciding what science to fund, implementation of policies pertaining to scientific findings, or practical use of scientific results (like nuclear weapons), and perhaps some other issues not mentioned are or can be politicized. But I stand by my basic point: if you get a liberal to measure acceleration due to gravity on Earth's surface, and then get a conservative to do the same thing, they'll both get 9.8 m/s^2. Similarly, relativity has been around long enough, has useful applications, and is so successful in predicting experimental outcomes that it should not be subject to the same treatment as the more controversial topics you mention.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:24, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: You apparently don't concede the liberal bias in the majority of my examples above, such as global warming and SDI. When I worked as engineer at a research facility in the 1980s, we had an IBM scientist with impeccable credentials give a presentation claim that SDI was impossible, dangerous, and bad politics. It's silly to pretend that his claim of impossibility of SDI was unrelated to politics. Likewise, it's silly to pretend there is no political bias in global warming theories. But if we can't agree on that, then there is little point in discussing this further. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Did you read the first sentence of my post above? Global warming is an example of tough policy decisions that could be implemented based on scientific findings. Surely both conservatives and liberals agree with the basic finding that the earth is warming. Similarly, the political debate over SDI was about the USE of science and technology, not the FINDINGS of science and technology. Sure, scientists can have opinions about what to do with their findings, but presumably the experimental results are valid across political lines. In any case, this is an aside; my specific concerns with the article, as addressed on this page, still stand. I assume by your willingness to exit the conversation that you don't have any problems with me addressing them?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:48, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Your first sentence omitted any reference to global warming. Global warming is a liberal scientific theory about if and why the earth is warming. Yes, there are political biases in many scientific theories. If you can't accept that, then I urge you to become more open-minded first before trying to pretend that something is immune from politics.

:::: I have no objections to factual edits of this article that add information. I do object to pushing a liberal point of view by deleting factual information. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:02, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: Sounds good. However, the fact that GPS satellite clocks have built-in corrections for relativistic effects is something I inserted previously, and it was reverted. I hope you understand that I brought up these issues in an effort to accurately represent the science, and not because of some agenda. As I've said, I don't think special and general relativity are associated with political controversy.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 19:12, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Bayes, you continue to insist on a falsehood, and I attribute that to [[liberal]] distortions in what you've read elsewhere. Please recognize that politics does distort science. '''GPS satellite clocks were not built based on predictions made by the theory of relativity.'''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: See my post above, where I have cited several sources that assert the contrary. On the other hand, you have yet to provide any evidence of how GPS can work without taking such corrections into account. Your source for that claim does not address timing issues with regard to GPS. I have to say that I'm increasingly baffled by your continued denial of this verifiable fact. How would a vast liberal conspiracy gain from hiding how clocks work?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:00, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Bayes, you're talking to a former engineer. GPS was built by engineers, not by theoretical physicists. GPS never used the theory of relativity. If you continue to dispute that (likely due to [[liberal]] bias), then give me your very best cite for your claim that GPS used the theory of relativity and I'll look at it. Otherwise, drop it and move on to a different issue. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:41, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

GPS and relativity links:
* http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
* http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
* http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm (actual equations)
* http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
* http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~kpgokeef/pubs/ENGO625relativity.pdf (slides from an engineering lecture - see pages 23-30 for listing of relativistic effects GPS accounts for - note conclusions on page 31.)
--[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 21:53, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: No, you're not listening. Give me your best cite for the claim that GPS *uses* the theory of relativity. Pick out your best, that's all I'm going to waste time on, since the answer is obvious to any engineer: GPS never used the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:58, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:: In that case, I should probably reference http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf "GPS And Relativity: An Engineering Overview".
:: The first page introduction finishes with "In this paper, we compare the predictions of relativity to those of intuitive, classical, Newtonian physics; we show how large or small the differences are, and how and what applications those difference are large enough to make it necessary to correct the formulas of classical physics."
:: Lorentz Contraction is covered on page 2, Gravitational redshift on page 3, and the acceleration of the satellite on page 4.
::: "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 -4.45x10-10 (= -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."
:: Does that help answer the question? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 22:22, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::: The very first sentences of this paper prove my point (emphasis added):

:::: 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 - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: 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 remainder of the paper is theoretical speculation about how a future GPS system might use relativity. There is disagreement about how relativity might be used, as reflected by comments in the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:05, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: The remainder of the paper is about improvements to the GPS system. The paper was published in '97. In 2001, the system was updated. With Block II GPS satelites, OCS was rewritten so that it doesn't require constant updates from ground stations to reset the clocks http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/mail/igsreport/1994/msg00146.html (example of clock reset for relativity prior to 2001). Instead, now, accounting for relativity constantly the GPS satellites are able to offer much more accurate positioning (this was required, as mentioned by the paper I previously linked, the 6 meter accuracy - it is now required by the 2001 performance standard http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/2001SPSPerformanceStandardFINAL.pdf (page 20 of the document, section 3.4) . If you are willing to reset the clock periodically and accept errors between clock resets - then you can discount relativity. If you want high accuracy all the time, you must take relativity into account between synchronizations. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:58, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: The remainder of the paper is about '''proposed''' improvements to the GPS system. There is nothing indicating that those proposals were ever implemented. So that paper strikes out as support for the claim that GPS relies on relativity.

::::: Now you're pointing me to a new paper. I'll look at it in the morning but, as I said, pick your best one. If this paper strikes out also then I'm unlikely to keep looking at more and more papers to explain why each one fails to support the claim. Please provide your very best cite, as I requested before. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:07, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::How about [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf this one], written by [http://www.colorado.edu/physics/Web/directory/faculty/ashby_n.html Neil Ashby] for [http://www.physicstoday.org/ Physics Today], a major publication of the AIP. Again, I quote from a portion, although the entire paper is about the issue in question:

:::::"[B]efore the first GPS satellite was launched in 1977, although it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require such a relativistic offset, there was uncertainty as to its magnitude, and even its sign. So correcting frequency synthesizers were built into the clocks, spanning a large enough range around the nominal 10.23 MHz clock frequency to encompass all possibilities. After the satellite's cesium atomic clock was turned on, it was operated for three weeks to measure its rate. The frequency shift measured during this initial period was found to be 4.425 parts per ten billion, agreeing with the relativistic calculation to better than 1%."

::::You've now been presented with many sources from Rutm and I supporting GR implementation in GPS, and you have yet to produce one source that says that GPS works on only classical principles. Furthermore, I question your motivation in demanding one "best" source, since I anticipate that you will attempt to attack the "best source," perhaps by invoking "liberal bias" (as if it existed in this case--either the clocks run at different frequencies or they don't), ignoring the vast consensus, and proclaim "victory."--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 10:56, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, I think I now (finally!) understand what's going on. I think we have a misunderstanding here; we're talking about two different kinds of corrections. The paper supplied by Rutm (and quoted in the current article) is discussing relativistic corrections to the frequency of signals measured by the receivers. That paper is from the early 1990s, and at that time no relativistic corrections were performed for those signals (though corrections might be taken into account now). Throughout this discussion, I have been referring to the fact that clocks on GPS space vehicles have ALWAYS had built-in frequency offsets to account for the relativistic effects on moving clocks and clocks in gravitational potentials. It's a question of corrections made to the '''communications''' between GPS components and the '''on-board clocks''' of the satellites; the former are not as important, while the latter are very important. Any problems with inserting this nuance into the article?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 19:14, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Andy, that GPS quote is extremely misleading. It implies that the relativistic effects are too small to be significant. But the rest of the paragraph explains that relativistic corrections are necessary to meet the accuracy requirements of most users. The article is incorrect when it states, "Predictions of relativity have not historically been used to make the Global Positioning System (GPS) function properly." Relativity has in fact been used, and programmed into satellites and receivers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:48, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:That's simply not true. GPS adjustments have been based on observation, not theoretical prediction. Effects predicted by relativity are offsetting to each other and the experts could not even agree in which direction the small net effect would be.
:This is a matter of historical fact and it's astonishing that the demands to rewrite history about this are so persistent. The quote confirms the obvious: GPS adjustments are based on observation, not theoretical prediction.
:For those who claim to have such a thorough understanding of GPS here, how about answering the question below: does Newtonian mechanics predict any divergence in the clocks from the satellite compared to ground? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: No, the fact is that the GPS satellites have operated both with and without the relativistic corrections. The cited articles confirm that. You are completely wrong to say that relativistic corrections have not been used.
:: The relativistic corrections partially offset each other, but not entirely, and they are big enough to affect accuracy in a typical consumer GPS unit. It is also false to say that there is disagreement among physicists on the point.
:: If you were right, then find an article that supports what you say. That paragraph you quote ends with "large enough to make it necessary to correct the formulas of classical physics." Include that, and give the date on the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:09, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:The article first states the obvious: GPS is not designed using the theory of relativity. Then the article discusses an ongoing and unresolved dispute about exactly what the theory of relativity does predict for the numerous factors involved in the GPS system, and makes its own unverified claims. Relativity predicts time differences going in both directions, and there are issues about what the inertial frame should be. One article cited earlier, which I will try to find and reinsert, states that Lorentzian (not Special) Relativity generally matches observations best.

:GPS was built by engineers and there is no reason for them to rely on the theory of relativity. It is far simpler and more reliable simply to observe the time differences. Engineers don't study the theory of relativity, and if you think a physicist well-versed in the theory of relativity provided essential predictions for the GPS engineers, then who was he? Give us his name and he we can simply ask him. Was he nominated for a Nobel prize? Surely he would have at least published a paper about his work. Where is it????

:And where is the answer to the question as to whether Newtonian mechanics predicts time difference in the GPS system also? After all, if someone is going to claim that GPS confirms the superiority of relativity to Newtonian mechanics, then surely he must first make a statement about whether Newtonian mechanics predicts a time difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:56, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: What you say is just not true. GPS was designed with an understanding of the magnitude of the relativistic effects. The effects are well-understood, and no one was nominated for a Nobel prize for predicting the effects. Yes, there were engineers who didn't study relativity and didn't think that relativistic effects would be significant. They have been proven wrong. There are no unresolved disputes. You have been given several references that tell the story. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:41, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

::: To sum:

*** no physicists have been identified who supposedly incorporated relativity into the GPS design
*** no papers exist describing how relativity *was* (not "might be") used in GPS
*** references that have been provided describe disagreements among physicists about the relativistic predictions for GPS
*** those claiming that GPS confirms relativity compared to Newtonian mechanics don't know whether Newtonian mechanics also predicts time differences, which renders the comparison pointless.

::: I realize that historical revisionism is common in many areas, but I would hope that science would adhere to a higher standard. Sometimes, unfortunately, science seems be even more vulnerable to revisionism. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:04, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: I will respond to this post below, under "Question about GPS"--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 13:55, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: As Bayes explains, the papers do say that relativity was used in GPS. Just what is the disagreement among physicists? I didn't see any in your references. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:43, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: No, none of the papers state that a physicist or group of physicists provided the complex relativistic predictions and that those predictions were incorporated into a particular GPS system. Engineers don't study relativity, and if physicists provided these predictions to a GPS system then there would be (a) names of physicists, (b) dates of incorporation, and (c) adjustments based on results. None of this happened.

::::: The claim that relativistic predictions were actually used in an actual GPS system wouldn't last 5 minutes on a witness stand at trial. It's pure fiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:20, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Theory of Relativity (moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]) ==

I found it offensive that you labelled my edit a "liberal edit". I was not aware of the Corpuscular Theory of Light, and therefore I did not know what "Newton's theory" in that sentence was referring to. Since there was no link (as there is now) to a page which shows Einstein's formula being two times more than his previous one, which was stated to be same as Newton's, I changed the sentence to the best of my knowledge - that light was viewed as a wave through ether at Newton's time, and therefore his theory of gravity does not apply.

How my mistake is a "liberal edit" is beyond me.
[[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:47, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: Please accept my apologies. By way of explanation, not as justification, liberals love relativism and their spin on the theory of relativity, and exaggerate everything associated with it. Claiming that relativity predicts the bending of light while Newton did not is one of those exaggerations. A simple search on the internet before deleting something here is always advisable, and that simple search reveals how Newton's theory predicts the bending of light too (though not by as much). I think this Newtonian prediction is in high school physics problem books, so it is not obscure.

: Regardless, thanks for your efforts and I look forward to more additions by you here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::I'll search the internet before making changes next time. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:04, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Ashlafly, I am concerned about the overall tone of the [[relativity]] article. Some statements suggest the presence of an anti-relativity agenda. Am I correct in guessing that this stance is due to a perceived link between moral relativism, the Democratic party, and the scientific concept of relativity? If so, I'd like to point out that while scientific funding by the government is certainly a political issue, actual scientific research is a separate issue and is independent of political leanings. The outcome of a proper experiment does not depend on whether the scientists conducting it are conservative or liberal. You are indeed justified if you are objecting to overzealous extrapolations based on scientific findings (such as moral relativism being based on scientific relativity), but such extrapolations have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific findings themselves. IMHO, encyclopedic articles on the scientific concept of relativity should stick to the science and not go into philosophy or politics. Furthermore, criticism of concepts such as moral relativism should be concerned with the merits (or lack thereof) of the concepts themselves, not on sound science that has nothing to do with it. Attempts to discredit relativity because of perceived links to philosohical or political positions that one disagrees with are not scientific, and fly in the face of undeniable experimental verification, basic facts (like how GPS satellite clocks function) and essentially universal acceptance of at least the basic principles. If you would like to incorporate some of the material on the current relativity page into a separate article, such as [[Historical views of relativity]], a personal essay, or something similar, then I would be all for it. I have not yet edited the relativity article heavily, but please see [[Talk:Theory of relativity]] for some of my specific conerns.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:56, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: I have already responded to this above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:32, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

== Question about GPS ==
Does Newtonian mechanics predict that clocks on GPS satellites will diverge from clocks on earth? That is not an easy question to answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:32, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:As far as I'm aware, no. It's relativity that predicts that there will be a divergence in time, for reasons already discussed. However, I want to throw in: both of you aruging about whether GPS satellites use relativity are correct in certain ways. Andy, you're correct that there is no actual use of relativity on the circuits on board the satellite. For those arguing that relativity is used, you're correct too; based on predictions from both general and special relativity, the clocks on the satellites are fine tuned with an offset to minimize the nano-second order deviations from clocks on the ground. Then, for practical purposes, newtonian based approximations are acceptable accuracy-wise. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 14:08, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

: Mr. Schlafly, I apologize for not responding more quickly. Newtonian mechanics cannot account for the observed divergence in clock rates. Classically, inertial reference frames are related by [[Galilean transformations]]:

:: x' = x + vt
:: t' = t

:: where x and x' are positions in the rest and moving frame, respectively
:: t and t' are times in the rest and moving frame, respectively
:: v is the velocity of the moving frame relative to the rest frame. Note that frame labels like "rest" and "moving" are arbitrary.

: According to those transformations, time in all inertial frames is the same (t' = t), and therefore no time dilation is predicted. However, the Lorentz transformations that relate inertial frames according to special relativity DO predict time dilation. So that would allow for corrections based on the relative speeds of the satellites. However, you could reconcile the time difference using classical mechanics IF you assert that the speed of light in the moving frame is different from the speed of light in the rest frame; that would essentially mean that the satellites are measuring a different light speed than the earth is. Such assertions would conflict with experimental evidence.

: Another, more significant time dilation effect is due to gravitational time dilation, predicted by general relativity, which is dependent on the curvature of spacetime. Newtonian gravity incorporates an "action at a distance" principle and does not incorporate spacetime curvature, and therefore predicts no gravitational time dilation.

: Also, your statement that no sources have been provided showing that corrections for relativistic effects were historically incorporated is incorrect, as I have twice quoted from a Physics Today article (see above) showing that devices allowing for such corrections to clock frequencies were used when the satellites were first launched. I'm still convinced we have a misunderstanding; the satellite clock frequencies have used and do need relativistic corrections, but once those corrections are implemented, Newtonian physics works fine for communication and position calculations (although some sources seem to indicate that may not be true for fast-moving objects, like jets and so forth). However, you have successfully convinced me that there is something of a political element in some areas of science :)--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:40, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Bayes, it's wrong to assert that Newtonian mechanics does not predict time differences in GPS clocks. You can't build a clock that would be uneffected by acceleration under Newtonian mechanics.
:: Let's be frank for a moment. It's absurd to insist that an experiment proves theory A is superior to theory B when there is no understanding of what theory B even says about the experiment. Theory A may indeed be better than theory B, but superiority is not demonstrated by that experiment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:26, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::: You got a physics paper saying that relativity explains the GPS clock differences to within 1%. There is no Newtonian explanation for the differences. Just give the fact, and let the reader decide which theory is superior. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:48, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: The paper does not demonstrate that relativity predictions were incorporated into GPS. No paper demonstrates that.
:::: A few (not many) papers claim that observed GPS clock differences can be explained by relativity. That is a very different claim, and requires examining carefully the assumptions made in the calculations to justify a claim that the theory matches an observed result. It also requires comparing the calculations to Newtonian calculations, which the papers utterly fail to do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: Yes, of course those papers compare to Newtonian calculations. That is why they are called "GPS clock differences". They are the differences between the relativistic and Newtonian calculations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: No they don't. Those few papers attempting to match relativity theory with GPS clock results all implicitly assume that the effects on the accelerated clocks from Newtonian mechanics are zero. That is likely wrong. And that explains why there are so few papers and so few physicists who claim personally to have confirmed GPS results with relativity theory.

:::::: If GPS results really did confirm relativity theory, then this would be in textbooks and classroom assignments. It isn't. Only a few obscure physicists even make the claim asserted here, and because they implicitly make the assumption that Newtonian effects are zero, their claims are not credible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: Yes, of course the Newtonian effect on time are zero. What are you suggesting -- that some unknown Newtonian effect might predict a GPS clock difference that just happens to match the relativistic calculation? The fact remains that the GPS clock differences are predicted by relativity, and not by any other theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: There is a Newtonian effect on the clocks. Yet this was not even addressed by a few obscure physicists who claim to derive, using relativity while disagreeing with other experts, the exact same result as the observed GPS time differences. This omission hardly inspires confidence in their unverified work. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: It wasn't addressed because it doesn't exist. Do you have any reliable source that says that a Newtonian effect can explain the observed GPS time differences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:13, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: And if there is no such paper, then the relativity claim about GPS must be true??? No, the relativity claim about GPS needs to stand on far better logic than that.

::::::::: In fact, the few papers claiming relatitivy is confirmed by GPS, written by obscure physicists, overlooked the Newtonian effects on the clocks. If you think you can build a clock immune from Newtonian effects, then patent it immediately. Can't be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:49, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

<----

Please identify the calculations that predict a difference in time. Bayes has already shown that time in all inertial reference frames is equal and identified how he derived this statement, so there's obviously something we're missing. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:57, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Andy, if there is no paper saying that a Newtonian effect can explain the observed GPS time differences, then it is correct to say that relativity provides the only known explanation for those differences. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: No, we shouldn't accept the equivalent of "relative proof." Just because a flawed proof or claim is better than other flawed proofs or claims does not mean it is acceptable. Would any mathematician embrace a flawed proof because it is better than other flawed attempts to prove the same theorem? I don't think so. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:: If you don't want to call it a "relative proof", that's fine with me. I am just correcting errors. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:06, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::: Here are the facts:

:::*GPS satellite clocks have mechanisms to correct for frequency offsets caused by time dilation. I don't see how this can be disputed, unless you want to stubbornly deny that such devices exist, in which case you can claim that cars don't have engines.

:::: It hasn't been proven that the frequency offsets are due to "time dilation." Instead, you assume what you claim to prove. Your logic is circular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*Newtonian mechanics does not predict ANY time dilation because it regards time as absolute, even in accelerating frames. Again, I don't see how this can be reasonably disputed, outside of winning a Nobel Prize. There are no reputable sources that predict Newtonian time dilation because there is no Newtonian time dilation.

:::: No one said that Newtonian mechanics does predict time dilation. This is a strawman argument. What is true is that Newtonian mechanics effects the operation of clocks in accelerating frames.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*Relativity does predict time dilation. All reputable physicists (not just a few obscure ones) can attest to that.

:::: OK, this is true, but purely theoretical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*The predictions of relativity are in good agreement with the frequency offsets on GPS satellite clocks. Several papers on the topic have been cited on this page.

:::: A few papers by obscure physicists have made this claim, but these papers raise questions like disagreements among relativists and a failure to address Newtonian effects on the clocks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::If you want to flat-out deny the above, then I guess I shouldn't waste my time trying to improve the article. I'll also point out that some significant creationist ideas depend on relativity to explain the starlight problem (God creating the Earth inside a massive gravitational field), so it's not an amoral atheist conspiracy.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:57, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: Relativists love to exaggerate relativity. Earlier, someone here claimed (based on what he had been taught by relativists) that only relativity predicts the bending of light from gravity. Wrong again. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

<---

You state, ''"No one said that Newtonian mechanics does predict time dilation...What is true is that Newtonian mechanics effects [sic] the operation of clocks in accelerating frames."'' Those sentences are contradictory. Newtonian mechanics does NOT predict any difference in the operation of clocks. Furthermore, what do the frequency offsets do if they don't compensate for time dilation?? Are they decorative?? Clock frequencies have to be adjusted ''because the clocks run at different rates''. And whatever extrapolations "relativists" come up with have nothing to do with the science.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:36, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that's correct. If you wanted to make an anti-relativity statement, I think that here is the most that you could say correctly is this:

* GPS does not prove relativity, in the sense that no experiment ever proves a theory. There is always the possibility that someone will come along later with a better explanation.

* Being able to calculate the relativistic corrections is not truly essential to making GPS work. Nowadays the satellite clocks are synchronized so frequently that predicting the clock drift is not necessary. If relativity were never discovered, then the satellite corrections could be made without anyone realizing that the system was just adding relativistic corrections. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:02, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::RSchlafly, although I disagree with your decision to remove some of the discussion here, I agree with your position. My only issue is that your second bullet still leaves open the question of why the clocks drift, or why they need to be synchronized often, and implies that we don't have a good explanation. However, we do have a pretty good explanation--relativity can predict such discrepancy to high precision. If GPS is mentioned in the article, I would prefer that we insert language similar to "Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth. Currently, relativity provides the best explanation for such adjustments (insert refs)" Does that sound any better? I'm open other suggestions.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 16:28, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't know what you mean about my "decision to remove some of the discussion here". What discussion did I remove? I did want to remove the 1996 quote because it is out-of-date and out-of-context. Anyway, I inserted your proposed 2 sentences. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:01, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: I was referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ATheory_of_relativity&diff=259155&oldid=259114 this edit]. Anyway, not that big of a deal now; I appreciate your attempt to fix the article, although those attempts have now been effectively neutered [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=next&oldid=259513] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=next&oldid=259528]. The GPS section has now grown so large that it may now detract from learning about relativity. I wonder if it is not better placed on the GPS article rather than this one.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 12:19, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: Sorry, I apparently accidentally lost some comments. I just tried to restore them. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:53, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

==Skepticism==
Edits like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=259513&oldid=259511 this one] made in the last few days are again consistent with the overall skepticism for relativity present in the article. The physicist in question is indeed involved in research into alternatives to general relativity. He appears to support [http://ecolloq.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/2001-Spring/announce.alley.html Yilmaz theory], which is not especially well-regarded by the scientific community [http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/ASGRG/ACGRG1/fackerell.html] [http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504050]. Even if it turned out to be an improvement on GR, it would still predict time dilation and other relativity-esque things, so I don't see what would be gained by denying all of GR but then embracing Yilmaz theory. GR is constantly being tested because a.) it is in conflict with quantum mechanics and b.) it is the current gold standard for theories of gravitation, and the limits of current gold standards are where new physics lie. Physicists I know who are doing research on alternative theories of gravitation teach classes on relativity, and emphasize its success; they aren't "skeptics" who want to throw it in the trash. Improvements on GR are likely to include GR as an approximation, as Newtonian mechanics is an approximation to GR.

Relativity is the current best idea we have to explain a lot of things and works to within experimental uncertainty for all tests of it performed so far. This article should reflect that success instead of embarking on a misguided ideological quest to discredit it in favor of Newtonian mechanics, which is known to have limits. And what I've said applies to GR; SR is even more established. Aschlafly, your problem with relativity appears to be that it is called "relativity" which you believe allows it to somehow be associated with moral relativism. Would your objections still hold if it were named "Reference Frame Theory"? Please remove the skeptical claims, as their inclusion implies willful ignorance to anyone who visits this page.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:37, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, we're factual on this site. Exaggerations about the theory of relativity or anything else are not allowed here. For example, one editor here claimed that relativity predicts the bending of light but that Newtonian mechanics does not. That is false. Some of the claims here about GPS using relativity have also been false. This isn't allowed in a credible encyclopedia. Go to Wikipedia if you want to stretch or distort the truth to suit your personal views about what the facts should be. Here we state what the facts are.

: Similarly, we don't delete or censor factual scientific information here. You recently deleted factual information without justification, and your deletion has been reverted. Please abide by our [[rules]]. Thank you and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:21, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Andy, I don't get the point of your edits. Under Ostensible Paradoxes, you have a 2001 article that says "If confirmed, the finding could mean ...". That was 6 years ago. Was it confirmed, or not? The following results are somewhat interesting, but obscure. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:14, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

== Nasa on spacecraft and relativity ==

Three of the items found with a quick search:
* Cassini refines measurements of general relativity with its trip around the sun [http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm]
* Voyager 1's slingshot around Saturn showed frequency shifts in agreement with relativity [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html]
* Gravity Probe B is a satellite launched and demonstrates frame dragging and geodetic warping of space [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html][http://einstein.stanford.edu/]
Given these examples, I believe the passage recently added:
:In addition to GPS discussed above, NASA has launched numerous space probes and missions, but none of them have ever used the theory of relativity in their timing mechanisms even though they experience much weaker gravitational fields in space.
is inappropriate and misleading. Even if the space craft where not ''designed'' with relativity in mind (the Gravity Probe B certainly was designed with it in mind), Voyager and Cassini and others demonstrated the effects of relativity as they dipped into gravity wells and out of them with the frequency of the signal being sent to Earth. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 12:47, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:: The current statement is correct in the entry and we do not delete correct, educational information here. You cite some interesting articles which could also be added if they are given detail and explanation suitable for a high-quality encyclopedia. I took a quick look at your articles and they seem to be designed for public consumption, lacking satisfactory detail of a scientific level. But feel free to add a paragraph '''without exaggeration''' that explains clearly what you think these experiments demonstrate. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The [[libera]] edits and censorship have been reverted. This is not [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 17 December 2007 (EST)

I'm not trying to be liberal or censor, but I doubt anyone thought any less of Dicke due to his support of Brans-Dicke - which is merely the addition of a scalar field to the tensor of GR - in fact, all of einsteinan GR is viable under Brans-Dicke - if the scalar field is set to null - the difference is the allowable effect of long-distance large masses that is not rsquared. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 15:16, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:Um... this is supposed to be targetted towards high school students. Your really doing nothing but babbling to me, because I don't understand what you're talking about. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 20:04, 17 December 2007 (EST)

I made a change that was first related. Even by the methods that science uses to deny christian beliefs they both fail. Putting it that way is a little stronger, as well as more accurate. It's kind of hard to say that "string theory" has been a failure when just about every physicist who wants to work these days needs to learn and be productive in it. It's just entirely "thought experiments" though, and quirking math to make it fit. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 20:02, 17 December 2007 (EST)

If this article is directed at high school students, Dicke would not be mentioned, as his contribution to the theory of relativity was limited. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 09:11, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:His importance to this article for Conservapedia is that he believed in something other than General Relativity, and although very intelligent, never received a Nobel Prize for any of his findings. The point being made is that if you disagree with GR, that you won't get a Nobel Prize. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:13, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Why you would disagree with GR is beyond me, but… --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 14:16, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Whether or not I disagree with GR is irrelevant. This wiki has a goal and purpose, and you need speak toward that audience. The intention of this article is to question and critique GR, not to assume that it is automatically true. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:21, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::You realize that what [[User:PhysicsNut|PhysicsNut]] was explaining - as I understood it - was that Dicke ''didn't'' really believe in something other than General Relativity? All that "babbling" was describing why Brans-Dicke theory differs little from GR (PhysicsNut, feel free to correct me on this). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:19, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::: That's correct. Brans-Dicke with Omega approaching infinity is General Relativity per Einstein. At no point did Dicke doubt that matter bent space-time. He merely postulated that there was another effect of matter that was not an r-squared effect. He didn't win the Nobel because someone else heard the CBR first - Dicke was just the one who realized it was proof-positive of the Big Bang. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 16:44, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::: It's bias to insist on describing theories that compete with relativity in terms of relativity. Also, the explanation for why Dicke, one of the finest physicists of the 20th century responsible for ''multiple breakthroughs'', did not win a [[Nobel Prize]] is not as plausible as the reason given.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Says who? Don't we need "authoritive sources for all the changes you want to make," or is your insinuation that Professor Dicke (who proved the Big Bang as his most notable breakthrough) was a young-earth creationist enough? [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 20:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)

This article is an embarrassment. Whatever - this project is obviously doomed. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 21:05, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Your attitude is completely unhelpful. You should not continue to post. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:21, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Maybe so, Puellanivis, but still, try not to write off editors so quickly! [[User:Physicsnut|Phyiscsnut]] is only new here, and may not have understood how [[Conservapedia]] differs from [[Wikipedia]] or other [[MSM]] outlets. Many editors have moved beyond initial misunderstandings to find ways to contribute positively to Conservapedia, despite ideological differences - so you needn't necessarily drive them off right away. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:06, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::: I don't why there are so many edits to the content page here, and I'll have to sort through them again. Relativity is a magnet for [[liberal bias]], but we're not going to allow such bias here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:21, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::Feebasfactor, your point is very well received. I definitely agree with your point. But people will not get anywhere without discussing and considering. If they express an attitude that this site will never be helpful if it rejects their viewpoint, then that's just silly. Aschlafly, I believe I had cleared it up fairly well with my last revert, but please feel free to review it. I think it attracts so much liberal bias, because they feel like it's home turf, or something, and get mad when anyone insults it. I suppose it's kind of the same thing as the liberals insulting the Bible. It just evokes such a strong response, that liberals get stupid (more so) and don't stop think and consider. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 00:27, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::: Insult relativity all you want. Insult the memory of Robert Dicke and you can rot. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 20:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Physicsnut, you're making no sense. Please don't pollute our pages with namecalling nonsense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:11, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Nobel Prize Contradiction ==

In the beginning of the section Evidence for Relativity you state that, "There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity." This is part of your reasoning as to why GR is not scientifically viable, yet in the section Philosophical Impact of Relativity you state that Robert Dicke is still a an accomplished physician despite his never being awarded any Nobel Prizes. Now it seems to me that if you wish to still credit Robert Dicke as an accomplished physician, which is certainly true, then it would seem only fair to leave out the comment about GR never gaining Nobel recognition. At least not in the context of trying to discredit it. You can't have it both ways. Either it's possible to be reliable and not gain Nobel recognition, or not gaining Nobel recognition speaks to the validity of the subject. One or the other; can't be both. --[[User:Aralith|Aralith]]

: Your logic is defective, because Robert Dicke (physicist, not a physician) was slighted due to bias ''in favor of the theory of relativity''. That bias obviously does not explain the lack of Nobel Prizes for relativity. It's the lack of evidence that is the reason there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:: If the Theory of Relativity is so commonly accepted among physicists (meant to write that in the last post but the wrong word came out of my fingers) how could it be that the Theory of Relativity hasn't gained Nobel recognition, which is voted on by a commitee made up of the same scientists who support said theory unless it is possible for a subject (person, theory, etc.) to be extremely important but not Nobel Prize worthy? In which case it makes perfect logical sense that both Dicke and GR could be a great person/theory respectively but not gain recognition from the Nobel committee.

== legal right to abortion ==

"For example, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama helped publish an article by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to abortion.[39]"

Unfortunately there is no link to the article in question. It would interest me much what the right to abortion has to do with the alleged curvature of space. Either the space is curved, or it isn't. Neither of both could ever affect my moral convictions.

{{unsigned|Harald}}

:This entire section is ridiculous and irrelevant. Clearly the curvature of spacetime was being referred to as a metaphor. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]]

::Please rewrite the section and/or move text to other articles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Where is the reference to Obama helping publish the article? The current reference points to the JSTOR article abstract, which does not mention Obama's involvement whatsoever. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 15:33, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

== Paradoxes? Nobel Prize? ==

Why are these things labeled as paradoxes? The rule is the speed of light IN A VACUUM is constant WITH RESPECT TO INERTIAL FRAME. The variability of c (the speed of light) through a medium is accepted and irrelevant as far as SR is concerned. That is due to the absorption and reemission of photons by atoms as light hits travels through glass (or air or fiber optics cable). Similarly, relativity neither prohibits nor "encourages" a c that varies with the age of the universe. Indeed, the nature of the constant is still a mystery, and it may indeed be dependent on some factors we are unaware of.

If anyone is confused, shoot me an email and I'll either give you a full explanation or point you in the direction of a good resource.

Also, there are several reasons Einstein never received a Nobel Prize for relativity:

-he recieved a prize for the photoelectric effect,which has laid the framework for quantum mechanics (arguably just as important). They may have had qualms over giving two to the same person (they haven't done it yet).

-initially, there was some resistance against it by the old guard of physicists who had wasted their lives pursuing the alternative (and stupid) ether explanation for the nature of c.

-the Nobel committee favors ideas that have practical applications (hence no prize for mathematics), and at the time relativity had none.

-as to why they haven't given him one recently...well, Einstein's dead, and they don't give prizes posthumously. (A sticking point, since the full significance of a theory might only be fully realized generations after its inception).

So saying the Nobel prize hasn't recognized Einstein for relativity is misleading and irrelevant.

And now I'm curious. This article seems to have an anti-relativity bias. Why is relativity unAmerican or unChristian (besides the fact that Einstein was a German Jew)?

And what's up with the Obama reference? I don't think God asks politicians (liberal or conservative) for their opinions when he establishes His natural law. (unsigned by User:QED)

:I looked at your edits for this and found them to be wanting. The information on the Nobel committee is accurate. It's a small part of the article and no specific conclusions are stated from it. I can see why you would believe this is not a slight on relatively, nevertheless it is true as written. In the absense of any counter evidence, such as writings by the Nobel committee explaining this, it should be allowed to stand. Your other point is, temporarily, out of bounds. You may believe that relativity allows for faster than light movement 'virtually', but unless you have a source, it's not going to be included. In other words your conjecture is not going to trump a source that appears to take a neutral position.

:Lastly, do not try to play the minority card again. You aren't Johnny Cochran. The article on Einstein is extensive and written with great respect. I'm assuming you could already have checked it up to see the view on him at CP. Consider this to be your one and only warning in this area. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:38, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:: User: Learn together's analysis is superb. The polemic comments above by QED seem to have little relation to the actual entry here, or to science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

== Questions ==

The introduction refers to "a principle which led to the first theory", but as far as I can see, there's no further reference to or explanation of this. What is this referring to?

It's been asked a couple of times above, but not answered as far as I can see: What relevance does Obama's comment have in this article?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:54, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: The reference to "principle" should be to postulates. That's been fixed. The reference to Obama is explained enough, don't you think? It describes political support for the theory, and use (or misuse) of it for political gain.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:45, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
:: It hasn't been explained on this talk page at all. Harald asked the question above, Kristkrispies added a criticism, and the only reply was from Ed Poor suggesting the section be rewritten. QED asked about it also, and the reply didn't address that point.
:: However, rereading the footnote (or did I miss that before?), I can see a very tenuous connection, but not one that warrants it being included in this article. I suggest it be removed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:44, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, I'm assuming you're referring to the Obama reference. The heading explains it. Political insights are a key part of this site, and explaining [[political benefit]] to something is essential to understanding why it is emphasized and/or misrepresented. The [[theory of relativity]] is used, or misused, to advance [[liberal]] goals, and the Obama reference is an important illustration of that. Would you like to see more examples?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Yes, I was referring to the Obama reference. Not, it's actually the opposite of the heading, because it is (mis)using relativity (physics) to support something political, not political support of relativity which is what the heading refers to. And as such, it's only of marginal if any real relevance to an article about relativity. I guess, though, I can see ''some'' point in it. That is, it's like an article about [[comet]]s mentioning that there was a musical group named [[The Comets]]; a bit of barely-related trivia, but the sort of thing that Wikipedia and Conservapedia sometimes do (often under the heading of "cultural references"). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

== My edits ==
I added a bit more information in the introduction to general relativity, because, as written, the article didn't really explain what the idea behind general relativity was. I don't think the edit is perfect, so people are free to tweak it or add more.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:12, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I also deleted "at infinite speed" from the sentence that said in classical physics light travels at infinite speed in a straight line. In classical physics, light still travels at c (approx 300,000 km/s), as Maxwell or any book on electrodynamics can tell you. In fact, it was this very observation that got people all caught up in the ether theory, because Maxwell's equations made direct reference to the speed of light. Consequently, people assumed that the equations had to be referring to the speed of light with respect to some fixed medium, i.e., the ether. Of course, we all know how well that theory worked out.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:21, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I removed the sentence about the Nobel prize committee not recognizing SR/GR in the evidence for SR/GR section. Mostly, the sentence just seems out of place with the rest of the section. Also, the reference provided was just a link to the Nobel committee homepage.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:49, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I removed the last section: time dilation and creation science. If we start including every crackpot scientific theory ever proposed, this page is going to become enormous.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 14:00, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:I see you are not around to respond, but including the latest creationary thinking doesn't mean that crackpot theories will be included. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== New Edits, Proposed edits ==
This article needs some major work, and I don't mind diving in and trying to correct some things. I added something on the equivalence principle because the existing information about general relativity was mostly mathematical with no physical insight. I'll try to clean up more when I have more time. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I also corrected a mistake about force defined in special relativity. The way it was written it wasn't defining a vector. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Further, I would really like to clean up the experimental evidence section, but there appears to be some contention regarding GPS, so I thought I'd discuss it with other editors here. The GPS definately DOES include some relativistic corrections. Consider the 1996 paper referenced in the article, on page 193 of the journal, page 5 of the article the authors tell us "The GPS operational control system corrects the pseudoranges measured by its monitor stations for the sum of the gravitational and velocity effects." What the article discusses is that the corrections are merely the average corrections, not the full specific velocity/gravitational effects. The article is being used misleadingly to make an unsupported claim. If no one objects in a day or two, I'll make the changes. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I'd also like to remove the stress on Dicke's theory, as Dicke's theory is basically just an extension of GR. Dicke's theory is still a metric theory of gravity involving curved space time, so most of the discussion of GR should be applicable to Dicke's theory. Dicke's theory should probably be included in another article. Also, the contention that Dicke didn't get a nobel because he proposed an alternative theory needs some supporting information or a citation or I think it should be removed. Again, if no one objects, I'll make the change. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I also plan, given time, to give a more "layman" style description of GR following my brief discussion on the equivalence principle. For students, diving straight into tensors, geodesics and field equations will most likely obscure the physics. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

== Einstein's Cross/Ring and Gravitational Lensing==
I think it'd useful to have a picture of gravitational lensing in the proof section. As I'm not an admin, I can't upload it. There's the picture found on wikipedia which is known as "Einstein's Cross," but there are plenty of other examples of gravitational lensing that can be found in the public domain: [http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/search.php?words=lens&x=0&y=0&method=and&format=normal&sort=score&config=picturealbum&restrict=entire_collection%2Fpr&exclude=]. I suggest picking a nice looking one and displaying it. I'm personally partial to the double ring found here: [http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire_collection/pr2008004a/]. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 20:43, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

: The images don't add anything new of substantive value. What's really needed here is more explanation about whether twice as much bending of light by relativity is really predicted and shown, compared to the prediction of bending of light by Newton's theory. Most people are misled to think that Newton's theory does not predict the bending of light, when it does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:53, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I tried to edit, read it over, reverted it as it wasn't making sense. However, I think there should be something about photons being able to move at speeds other than c in the bit about Newtonian lensing. My phrasing was really poor, thus the self-revert. I may take another crack at this later when I can get the words right.--[[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 21:22, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

::: The bending of light in Newtonian physics is not a trivial issue. The mass can approach zero and it still bends, for example. How much it bends is debatable, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:35, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Do you think it'd be a good idea to create a page about the bending of light under Newtonian Dynamics? Most people don't know about this and I think an explanation that's less technical than the linked source might help. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 15:07, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== Science And Math Facts That Prove Einstein's Blatant Error In His Relativity Theory ==
With all due respect, but with regard to truth in real science, my writing here is to provide undeniable mathematical and science fact that special relativity is false science.
For information this math proof was written on Wikipedia about two years ago and they squelched the truth in science by a vote of 8 to 1, and even though a supposed expert in relativity wrote that the math proofs did in fact prove relativity to be totally wrong, in the end he chose to live a lie and to squelch the truth.
In the end you can also squelch truth in real science by determining that truth by the undeniable science and math facts written here or to live according to truth. Either is your choice but squelching will only suppress science facts and true science. So I am going to write the science and math that shows undeniable truth and you can decide. [[User:StevenCrum|StevenCrum]] 16:31, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

:A section on "critiques of Einsteinian relativity" would be good. Do you remember the name of the expert? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:58, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

== More regarding the criticism of LIGO ==

As a student of physics, I feel myself almost obliged to add something to the discussion regarding LIGO, particularly as I work for a Professor that is part of the LIGO collaboration and have actually attended scientific conferences where the subject is addressed (though to be fair my work with her specifically deals with another one of her collaborations, Borexino).

First, as mentioned in previous discussion, it is indeed true that it was understood that LIGO, like many scientific undertakings, would need to be refined and calibrated before reaching its design sensitivity. To claim the LIGO is a failure before it has reached its design sensitivity is just as ridiculous and ignorant as criticizing any other tool or piece of equipment for not functioning before it is properly calibrated. It isn't like the LIGO collaboration is trying to pull any fast ones on anyone by being secretive about this - just do a Google search for LIGO to bring up their web page, where they discuss the details of this matter.

Secondly, it is true that the "success" of the experiment cannot be known prior to its being conducted, but if it could, what would be the point in conducting the experiment in the first place? Experimentation is a necessary aspect of science because scientific investigation fundamentally deals with the discovery of knowledge not previously known to us, and because it is not known to us, even its ultimate usefulness cannot be known a priori. The rate of observed events under the initial design sensitivity is predicted to be very low, so it would not be very surprising if we did not observe anything until advanced LIGO debuts. Even still, there is a fundamental uncertainty in the rate of events that will be seen. Maxwell was once asked what the usefulness of electromagnetism could ever be, to which he replied "What good is a newborn baby?" I do not believe I need to highlight the usefulness of electromagnetism in the modern world.

Which brings me to my third point, which is the enormous significance LIGO holds in terms of scientific potential. If LIGO is successful, it will revolutionize modern day astronomy by providing a new method for detecting cosmological phenomena. Gravitational radiation would offer another method of "imaging" the heavens, independent of electromagnetic radiation. To say that LIGO would have limited scientific benefit would be a serious rebuke to the field of astronomy in general. Optical astronomy would be coupled with gravitational astronomy as a valuable check on astronomical results attained by optical methods alone. But of course, the fundamental uncertainty we have as to what the observed rate of events will be reflects the fact that we do not know with complete certainty what cosmological objects exist, hence the very reason that LIGO would be useful.

Even more revolutionary would be if LIGO failed to detect gravitational waves. If you only assume the existence of a gravitational field, and that disturbances in that field cannot propagate faster than the speed of light, then by the very definition of wavelike phenomena, you have gravitational waves. Gravitational radiation is a prediction of General Relativity, and as such, were it to be disproved, it would falsify a prediction of a scientific theory. To say that this is not valuable would be to suggest that, for example, Michelson's experiments in search of the aether were not valuable, whereas in reality they gave supporting evidence to the idea that there is indeed no aether. At the very least, the experiment should be able to place certain restrictions on the rate of observed events. If gravitational radiation were not found, and this represented a serious contradiction with the rate of events predicted, it would be ABSOLUTELY ENORMOUS in terms of scientific relevance, and I cannot stress that enough. Something huge, somewhere in our understanding of the world, would have to be revised, be it the idea of the gravitational field, causality itself, etc. As a practicing scientist, I would almost hope that LIGO fails to see gravitational radiation, just because the scientific implications would be so unimaginably radical and weird, and force us to completely reexamine how we perceive the universe. But this subject could be argued until it reaches the realm of some very deep scientific philosophy - scientific theory is generally not viewed as being "completely true" or "completely wrong," but as a method of predicting physical phenomena, which eventually is replaced with a more accurate theory. Newtonian mechanics is not so much wrong, as it is not a good enough approximation in certain specific applications. If you want a metaphor, think about scientific progress as continuing to improve our Taylor expansion of the universe.

Though I suspect given the general tone of this article, somehow the death of GR would also please most of the contributors to this encyclopedia, as if General Relativity, a scientific theory, is somehow inherently a "liberal" idea. I'm sure that when Einstein formulated it, he envisioned it being used by Barack Obama to support a woman's legal right to terminate her pregnancy. Though, I hope for the sake of those contributors that General Relativity is either disproved, or is shown to be a "conservative" idea, because if it does adequately describe our universe, is a "liberal" idea, and God created the universe, then either God is a liberal, or he has a very weird sense of humo(u)r.

Just to get this nonsense out of the way now, I'm a registered independent. I vote, based on all of the relevant information I have been able to attain via what I believe to be credible sources, for whoever I honestly believe will be able to fulfill the duties of the office they seek, and I don't think anyone can ask any more of me than that. If any of this leads some of you to believe that I am incapable of discussing the theory of General Relativity, then I surely and sincerely have nothing but pity for you. --kfratus

: What are you talking about? The article has only one simple sentence about LIGO. Is that sentence correct or not? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:13, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

:: First, if you'll take a closer look at the talk page, you'll notice that there has been a good amount of discussion of the usefulness of LIGO, and that was what I was principally referencing. Secondly, the article in reality contains three sentences that in some way reference LIGO, albeit only one of them by name. The last sentence specifically mentions LIGO, the second sentence is clearly directly referencing LIGO without naming it, and the first claims that research involving the theory of relativity receives a disproportionate amount of funding. I would regard the first of those sentences as a matter of scientific opinion, which I addressed in my comments by pointing out how much impact LIGO could have on the entire astronomy community. The second and third sentences may not be incorrect, so much as they are worded as half truths. LIGO has been unsuccessful, or has failed, to detect graitational waves so far. To assert that LIGO has been unsuccessful in general would be entirely untrue, and is completely dependent on your notion of the "success" of the experiment, which I also addressed - LIGO has indeed managed to reach its target sensitivity, and whether or not they manage to detect gravitational waves, their results will still have a huge impact on the field of physics, which I would consider a successful experiment. --kfratus

:::Hopefully, when LIGO disproves so-called "[http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=gravity+waves gravity waves]", a relativist working on the project will be honest enough to call LIGO what it is. In this way, LIGO may end up being a very, very expensive way of '''disproving''' relativity, once and for all.
:::I doubt it, though, with all that grant money on the line. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 23:35, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: Maybe it is unfair to say that LIGO has been unsuccessful. But what about Gravity Probe B? That experiment seemed like a big expensive flop to me. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:26, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::I just want to make sure that the people here criticizing LIGO understand that the frequency range of the gravitational waves it was built to detect predict a variations in spacetime by only a factor of 10^-21. LIGO's longest vacuum tubes are 4km long. So physicists are attempting to measure a change in length approximately 1/2500th the diameter of an atomic nucleus.

:::::: Yes, that is why some people predicted that LIGO would fail. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

And to the poster who linked to youtube video of "gravity waves". Those ARE NOT gravity waves. Those are clouds.

:::::::As a passer-by stumbling upon your conversation, I never really meant to end up leaving this many posts, and I apologize if I'm violating your 90/10 rule, or anything like that. But I just wanted to clarify something that I see come up very often. I frequently run into people who have this impression that all scientists are members of some secret organization that is trying to hold knowledge from the public, and that they have their own personal reasons for trying to manipulate the body of scientific knowledge. While I cannot speak for all scientists, any of the ones that I have ever met (myself included), would be absolutely more than happy to welcome more people to our field of study. Most physicists I have met enjoy what they do, and would be very willing to pass their knowledge onto others (and one would have to admit that if we were somehow manipulating the entire body of public knowledge, we'd have to be doing a pretty good job of keeping every single scientist in the entire world quiet about the real truth - not very practical). And with respect to the comments made by BHarlan, I can assure you that most scientists would actually LOVE to disprove general relativity. In many cases, scientists are not famous because they confirm the prediction of a theory, but because they disprove one, thereby radically changing what we know about the world around us. The reason Einstein was so famous was because he disproved the Newtonian picture of the universe, not because he confirmed some prediction of it. But this is just like any other profession - think about it, if a rival of yours was successful in some way, wouldn't you be just dieing to somehow prove them wrong and rub it in their face? Scientists are people too, subject to the same personality traits as everyone else. This is why most physicists feel relatively comfortable with the scientific process - they know that if something is proposed as a theory, there will be a thousand people just itching to prove it wrong, thereby stealing the limelight for themselves. I think that if I ever found a way to disprove relativity, I'd practically have a heart attack out of excitement (and you can be sure I'd get a Nobel prize for it, too). In fact, it is already a well known fact that GR must be wrong at at least some level, because as it is formulated now, it's not compatible with some of the basic tenets of quantum mechanics. Though, I'm still pretty sure we'll see gravity waves, if you want my opinion. Gravity waves are predicted by ideas much more fundamental than GR (aka, the finite speed of light), and so GR could be be wrong, and we could still have gravity waves - as long as you define the propagating influence of gravity as a "wave," and assume that information can't travel faster than the speed of light, then there you have it, really. And with respect to the video of the clouds, those are actually "gravity waves," but of a different sort. The term comes from how the Earth's gravitational field effects atmospheric conditions. So it is the same term for two very different things, which unfortunately may lead to some confusion for some people. And with respect to Gravity Probe B, I admit that I do not know as much about that experiment, and off the top of my head would not really be able to debate it. Though if I remember correctly its data analysis is scheduled to continue into 2010, so I would hesitate to say anything until then (other than the fact that in principle, I find its goals fairly relevant - if you really wanted to test the geometrical nature of GR, you should try to confirm/disprove one of its craziest, most non-intuitive predictions - aka, frame-dragging).

:::::::But I can assure you, I have met plenty of people who are very politically conservative, and believe in gravity waves. In fact, many deeply spiritual people believe that relativity is a sign of God's existence. The basic idea goes that if relativity were not true, there would have to be some preferred reference frame, which would have to be chosen somewhat arbitrarily. But how could a divine creator just make some arbitrary choice like that? Not very elegant, if you ask me. In fact, I have heard that some people actually cry when they finally understand GR, because of what an elegant theory it is. If you want to read more about ideas like that, I definitely suggest Brian Greene's book, "Fabric of the Cosmos." If you want my honest opinion, I have yet to come across anything in my study of physics that I believe is a serious threat to the existence of some intelligent creator. From what I can gather, most physicists don't even concern themselves with such an aim - if God exists, then he exists. Our goal is to study what we can see, and make useful predictions based on that. If it's all just a result of God, then so be it. The only result will be that we've come to know Him a little better through out study of the universe and its workings. --kfratus

:::::::: The article hardly says anything about gravity waves. Are you suggesting some change to the article? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:00, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

== General Questions ==

The article suggests that Newtonian physics somehow suggest the bending of light, which is impossible according to Newtonian physics. Since a photon has zero mass, it cannot be bent by the force as described by Newton.

* Huh? I thought it was Newton who '''discovered''' the bending of light, which occurs as light enters a [[prism]]. It is because the various frequencies of light bend by different amounts that we get the [[rainbox]] effect (see [[spectrum]]). Or I have I totally forgotten my [[high-school physics]] and [[history of science]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Next point, Newton's action-at-a-distance theory of gravity seems to be taken as fact. The idea that general relativity violates this is used as a point against it. Newton himself stated, and I quote:

"It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the
mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and
affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must do, if gravitation,
...., be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason, why I
desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should
be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act
upon another, at a distance through vacuum, without the mediation of
anything else, by and through their action and force may be conveyed
from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no
man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking,
can ever fall into it."

Therefor, even the founder of classical mechanics saw action-at-a-distance as problem, so how is it in any way evidence to contradict a well tested theory?

: Oh, ignoring phenomena such as quantum entanglement, are we? --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 22:57, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
:: Actually, no. The reason that a grand unified theory is necessary is because of the discrepancies of the quantum world and the macro world. Both have been tested, neither conclusively, but evidence is in their favor. All I am saying here is that you can't use this (logically) as a point to disqualify an entire theory. Especially when you use this point when referencing a person (Newton) who had a problem with it.

::: Kindly use the signature button (10th from the left above) to "sign" your comments, so we can tell who's saying what.

::: Newton assumed nothing; he "feigned no hypotheses." Accordingly, he didn't have "a problem with it." It was his peers who could not accept it. Newton's quote above does not question "action at a distance," but is commenting on the nature of matter.

::: Many still refuse to accept action at a distance (and non-locality), as your own viewpoints demonstrate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
:::: Still refuse? As one of your relatives pointed out, there is some support for it, such as quantum entanglement, but on a large scale (say larger than the what is it now, 1 km?) past where quantum entanglement has been proven, there is no proof or any proof to suggest it should be true. And, I'm sorry, but I have to say. Don't assign my viewpoints to me sir. I will decide what I think based on fact. What I form as opinion, I will state as such. I don't understand how people can read this article with any knowledge of physics and agree with it. None of my professors, mentors, or scientists that I have met would support such statements. The fact that you are doing so proves the disgusting and twisted lengths that some people will go to in order to make established fact comply with their own super-conservative beliefs. It is people like yourselves that are ruining the republican party and make me scared for the future of America.--[[User:RobertSJ|RobertSJ]] 23:22, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

::::: So even though non-locality and action at a distance have been fully proven in laboratory experiments, you claim "there is no proof or any proof to suggest it should be true" ''beyond a certain distance''. Surely you don't think there is one set of laws for less than an arbitrary distance, and another set of laws for larger than an arbitrary distance. No, the real problem here is that some people, perhaps including yourself, do not and will not accept action at a distance regardless of the proof.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Next point, several "obscure physicists" is not the same as almost the entire community of physicists (which is the actual truth here.) Gravitational redshift perfectly explains the way that signals between earth and GPS satellites are different in time. That is how current GPS positions are calculated.

You mention LIGO at the very end and gravity waves as well. There is no prior mention. The prior mentions should explain what gravity waves are, why they are so weak, why they can probably only be detected from very massive binary systems, and why even when these massive binary systems are found the radiation should be so weak that the immense precision of LIGO and LISA are required.

Just some points on things that are not accurate or need to be clarified in order to not leave the reader with a false interpretation of scientific fact.

:Also edit, I am a physics major attending a well-respected and also conservative school (Vanderbilt). I have conducted research in physics at a national lab (ORNL), and like to keep up on this kind of thing. I am a moderate but conservative leaning voter.--[[User:RobertSJ|RobertSJ]] 23:22, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I responded in greater detail above, but let me just add that not everything you've learned is true, and not everything your professors state is true either. Hopefully you'll admit at least that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

: Photons have zero rest mass, but they are not at rest. A reference is given for the deflection of light as predicted by relativity theory. So the article seems to be correct about the bending of light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:41, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

::I wish that critics of CP would help us write [[basic physics]] articles instead of trying to "prove us wrong". Please help me finish the "[[bending of light]]" article, in accordance with what we all agree about Newton's discoveries many decades ago. Then we can discuss how to present [[quantum physics]], okay? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:04, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

== Non-Locality and Quantum Field Theory ==

There is no action at a distance, nor non-locality, in quantum mechanics nor field theory. None. You're confusing two different subjects.

First, action at a distance: True, in Newton's gravity, there is action at a distance. But this is totally different from anything to be found in QM or field theory, which have no action at a distance. All Hamiltonians in the standard models of field theory (QED, electroweak, QCD) are strictly local Hamiltonians. Forces are exerted by passing virtual bosons back and forth in space, like footballs. Interactions (like electron/photon, then photon/electron) are all 100% local.

The fact that Newton's theory assumed action at a distance (without proof) does not mean that ALL theories require action at a distance. Why should that follow? Why should modern theories be limited by Newton's unproved assumptions? Quantum field theory is immensely more accurate, measured objectively, than Newton's gravity force ever was. QED (with special relativity built in) predicted the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron accurate to one part in a TRILLION. Newton's theory was never even close to that level of accuracy! Newton could never accurately compute the orbit of Mercury or gravitational lensing to one part in a trillion! Or billion. By objective criteria, field theory is more accurate than Newton.

Second, non-locality: non-locality is not the same as action at a distance. Action at a distance requires exertion of a FORCE. Nothing in QM is in fact non-local. The only thing non-local about QM is the Copenhagen interpretation of wavefunction collapse, which is not a part of the equations, but a way of visualizing the effect of observation a QM system.

You have mentioned quantum entanglement as a supposed example of non-locality. Entanglement, and phenomena like quantum teleportation, do not exert FORCES, so they are not actiona at a distance! Further, quantum entanglement can never be used to transmit information faster than the speed of light. Hence, there's no contradiction between QM and SR. Field theory has SR built in. There is no experiment, in quantum teleportation nor EPR paradox, Bell's inequality etc., that can possibly transmit information FTL. Describe one experiment, just one entanglement experiment, that can supposedly transmit info FTL. I dare you. Just one.

So what is this supposed "non-locality" then? The Copenhagen interpretation of QM says that the wavefunction should "collapse" (revert to a single eigenfunction) everywhere simultaneously when an observation is made. If this really happened, it would be a problem for SR, because in SR, simultaneity is relative to the observer. But, two problems. First, this supposed "collapse" can never be observed and can never be used to transmit info FTL. Second, the Copenhagen interpretation is deeply flawed because it never defined what an "observation" was. It is no longer the most popular interpretation; among physicists, the Many Worlds interpretation is more popular now, because it precisely defines what observation means, in terms of quantum decoherence, so MWI connects better to macroscopic thermodynamics.

If you want to (groan) argue the point, you can argue that Copenhagen and Many Worlds are both non-local, but so what? They're visualizations, not equations, and certainly not forces, nor "actions"!! When neither visualization scheme can be used to transmit info FTL, nor exert a force, this is no problem for SR at all!

The only big problem here is that field theory is incompatible with GR, not SR. True. Everybody knows this is the biggest problem in physics. No one knows whether the flaw is in GR, field theory, or both. However, either way, there is no problem between field theory and SR. Field theory has SR built in, and is (objectively measured) the most precise scientific theory in history. If you argue this, I'll swamp you with experimental proofs. [[User:Cuddlytakun|Cuddlytakun]] 15:53, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

:"Cuddlytakun", you've obviously made up your mind that [[action at a distance]] and [[non-locality]] must not exist. But all evidence is against your view. Would you support spending another billion dollars of taxpayer money looking for [[gravitons]] to support your view? I hope not.

:How about this: raise ''private'' capital for searching for gravitons to support your philosophy. Then we'll see how many really agree with you, rather than just going along for the ride.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:10, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

Au contrere mon frere, you made up your mind that action at a distance is the only type force possible. I have nowhere said action at a distance is impossible. I've said Newton never proved, could not prove, it was the ONLY possibility. I suppose it's possible for both to exist. In field theory this would mean a Hamiltonian that is part local and part non-local. Sometimes the idea is kicked around. Mathematically, non-local Hamiltonians are a pain in the ass to compute with, and counterintuitive, but theoretically possible.

Why have you decided that action at a distance is the only possibility? Just because Newton's theory assumed it without proof, this does not mean all forces in nature must likewise be action at a distance. Think about this: suppose you and I are ice-skating. I toss you a football. When I throw the ball, reaction force pushes me backward. When you catch it, the collision pushes you away from me. Basic repulsive force at a distance, composed of local pairwise interactions. All forces in the standard model (electrodynamic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear; that is electroweak and QCD) work that way. The footballs are virtual bosons of spin 1.

"All evidence is against your view"? What evidence? What are you talking about!? "Your view"? Hell of a dismissive thing to say. It's not "my view", it's the view of everybody in physics, including Weinberg and Wilczek. Do you even know the meaning of the quotes you lifted out of Wilczek and Weinberg's speeches!? Seriously, do you have any evidence in mind, any at all, or are you just blowing smoke?

So you drag funding issues into it. As you know, the Europeans paid for the Large Hadron Collider so all the geniuses are moving to Europe. The last smart person to leave America, please turn out the lights.

But don't dismiss field theory as "philosophy". You're playing word games because you can't back up your statements with facts. These are facts: with field theory, you can predict the experimental value of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron to one part in a trillion. Of the muon, to one part in a billion. You can compute the mass of protons and neutrons and mesons from first principles, a priori! Which is an inherently relativistic computation (m = E/c2, with E from local QCD.) The Z boson's existence and mass were predicted before its discovery via electroweak theory, which is an entirely local Hamiltonian. Newton's gravity could never compute anything to an accuracy of one part in a billion, or compute masses of particles a priori, or predict new particles before they're observed! Why do you call field theory philosophy, but Newton's theory is science? Explain the definition of "philosophy" you're using here. Word games!
[[User:Cuddlytakun|Cuddlytakun]] 23:55, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

: Your "word-to-substance ratio" is very high; you are likely a [[liberal]]. See point 2 in [[liberal style]].

:I beg you to open your mind and learn here, for your own sake. Look at how you refused to address my simple point. Instead you cling to your perception of what you think others believe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

== Proof ==

The proofs for relativity are both mathematical and physical, yet this article tries to say otherwise. If someone doesn't know them then can I please put them in without them being edited out within minutes?

--[[User:Unlikelyconvert|Unlikelyconvert]] 13:14, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

: You're not going to push anything that is false here. Make your very best edit first and let's see how that looks, before you spend a lot of time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:20, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

I haven't tried to push anything, I've made a few edits already, corrected a couple of scientific mistakes, and said this. Can you please open your mind for just 10 minutes and look at both sides of this debate? Look at the overwhelming consensus on relativity, and then I will look at any source you give me forwarding your viewpoint. As I've said in another talk page, I am willing to change my views if you can prove them.
--[[User:Unlikelyconvert|Unlikelyconvert]] 13:27, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

: My mind is open, and I've invited you to make your very best edit first. Or, alternatively, state it here. Keep your word-to-substance ratio low, however. See [[liberal style]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:30, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Looking above, many people have stated the mathematical proofs in their different forms, yet you dismissed most of them almost out of hand. And I am not a liberal in respect to your definition, I am the (in my experience) the more common kind, the kind who will accept evidence. And you don't seem that open minded, as when i offered to put in proofs you started by saying I was trying to spread falsehoods. Proof makes something true, not false.

--[[User:Unlikelyconvert|Unlikelyconvert]] 13:34, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

: I'm going to move on to more substantive edits. Your word-to-substance ratio has been very high.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

::I'm going to ban uc if he doesn't stop trying to make people change their minds. If he wants to provide information about a novel, unproven or untested theory he's welcome to do that. He can even write about a theory which we conservatives know is false, provided that he doesn't try to present it as '''valid'''.

::Our policy is to label advocacy as such. Say, for example, that Professor X asserts theory Y because of Z. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:22, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

User talk:Cuddlytakun

2009-06-15T15:37:12Z

Lemonpeel:

{{welcome|sig=[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 04:50, 30 May 2009 (EDT)}}

==Quantum Field Theory==
Nice article on quantum field theory. Btw, I have a question. I often hear people say that the Higgs field accounts for why particles have mass. But I was under the impression that the Higgs field was only introduced to give mass to gauge fields by spontaneously breaking the gauge symmetry (so that, loosely speaking, the gauge field "eats" a Goldstone boson). As far a I can tell, it looks like the mass of leptons is simply inserted into the Lagrangian and plays no role in the Higgs mechanism. What am I missing?--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 11:37, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-05-26T17:37:18Z

Lemonpeel: /* Mass Increase Section */

== Mass Increase Section ==

In the subsection on mass increase, it is claimed that the abandonment of the relativistic mass point of view "undermines" the famous equation <math>E=mc^2</math>. I find this statement rather odd. After all, the broader principle underlying this equation is that if <math>p</math> is the 4-momentum vector of a particle, then the magnitude of <math>p</math> is the same in all inertial reference frames and equal (in units where c = 1) to the rest mass of the particle. This remains true regardless of whether one uses the language of relativistic mass or not. As currently written, this subsection is liable to confuse anyone who is unfamiliar with the subject.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 20:41, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

: Go ahead and fix it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:27, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

:Done.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 13:37, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

== Great article ==

1) Superb avoidance of difficult science in a scientific article. Best not to be confusing.
2) Nice attention on Eddington rather than the theory itself.
3) Good mind reading regarding Eddington's dreams.
4) Nice work ignoring the facts about things that have been inventing using GR such as GPS

And rather than simply be sarcastic, I will work on a better article over the weekend. One that actually discusses the science.

== Special and general relativity ==

This article seems to combine the two. They are different ideas and need to be distinguished. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:21, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Agreed. Separate articles would make more sense. I don't have time to do the necessary work right now, but if no one else does it I'm sure I'll get to it eventually. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:11, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:If someone will split the pages, I'll help flesh them out.--[[User:ZLewis|ZLewis]] 10:42, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Moral Relativism line needs to go. ==

I have never heard anyone advocating moral relativism use either of the theories of relativity to do it. Actually, the only people who I've ever heard that from are relativity deniers like Fred Hutchison. Not only does that show a grave misunderstanding of the scientific theory, but also a misunderstanding of the phrase "moral relativism". In any case, you can't draw moral implications from scientific theories. When someone says that Einstein's theory of relativity implies some kind of moral relativism, they're really saying "The geometric theory of gravity allows me to internalize my moral decisions".

That line is ridiculous and irrelevant, and needs to disappear.

:I don't like it ''at all'' in its present form, but the word "relativity" is thrown around casually ''quite a lot'' and there might be justification for a section with a title like "what relativity is not."

:E.g. [http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/06/relativity.html Scott Adams], author of the Dilbert comic strip, says "Einstein’s great insight was assuming reality was not fixed, and that everything was relative to the observer" and goes on to say "I have extended that thinking to people..."

::I think using Scott Adams as a reference or a jumping-off point for discussion really constitutes holding one's self to a dismally low standard. He's posted his own theories of physics to his blog a few times, freely admitting that he knows they're wrong and that he just takes pride in the fact that the layman can't successfully challenge them. In all honesty, moral relativism is a perfectly valid subject for an article, but it doesn't have anything to do with physics other than an unfortunate overlap of words and definitions in English. Putting this section in just makes the authors look like they're bristling for a fight. [[User:Willforpresident|Willforpresident]] 21:25, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:What follows is interesting if not very profound, but dragging Einstein into it is not helpful.

:It just goes to show the value of jargon. When scientists give something a simple name like "relativity," people assume they understand it and misapply it. I'm just thankful that people aren't very familiar with mathematics or we'd be hearding about crop circles in Galois fields. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:50, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::I like the "what relativity is not" idea. Might be worth pointing out that relativity in physics didn't start with SR; there is such a thing as Galilean relativity, after all. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:57, 25 February 2007 (EST)

This line must go. It is not relevant to the article. Have a disambiguation page for relativity. The citation is completely incorrect. The website http://www.moralrelativity.com/about1.html says nothing about general relativity influencing moral relativity. This article says 'Relativity has generated a huge following by advocates of moral relativism,' but the website http://www.moralrelativity.com/about1.html does not make any mention of this statement, therefore it is improperly cited. Citations are supposed to support claims, and this one does not. (Read the website for yourself). Also, just because relativity is a homophone in this case doesn't mean it belongs in an article of the (general) theory of relativity. ''Please make a disambiguation page'' because this is clearly in the wrong place.

I removed the moral relativity part from this article and placed it in a new article called [[Moral relativity]]. Relativity here is clearly just a homophone, and moral relativity is irrelevant to special or general relativity. To illustrate my point, see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativity. Relativity in physics has a special meaning. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 00:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, moral relativism is a big reason for the political support of types of relativity. It's obviously relevant to this article, and the above criticism only reinforces the need to include a reference. We can debate how to say it, but censorship is not an option here. Go to Wikipedia for that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, then that can go into the [[Moral relativity]] article, which now exists. There is no support for your claim. Neither is there a need for political support for a scientific theory. The way you describe it, moral relativity references this theory of relativity, not the other way around. The theory of relativity neither relies on moral relativity in any explanation of it or needs it to be mentioned for a complete treatment of the theory, and therefore it is inappropriate to add it here. I direct you again to the dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativity in order to clarify that relativity in this sense has specific meaning in the domain of physics, and arbritrary theories that share the word are not in this domain nor are related in any concrete way, simply being homophones. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 18:40, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Someone added more about the moral relativity bit, so I put it in the right place: in the article on [[Moral relativity]]. The section says, "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views," which is about moral relavitity and how they use the theory of relativity, not how the the theory of relativity involves moral relativity. I challenge the writer again to find a work on the physics theory that metions moral relativity at all. Just because a page mentions the theory of relativity does not make it a legitimate part of the theory itself, and as such, does not belong in this article. If anything, the [[Moral relativity]] article should make a link to this article, not the other way around. I am not sure the agenda here, but it seems that someone would like to promote moral relativity by attaching it to unrelated articles. Please add your information to the correct article in the correct place. Again, here is the link: [[Moral relativity]]. Go crazy. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

ASchlafly, you added the line "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views" and gave a citation afterwards. If you read the page that you cite, you will see that the author merely uses Special Relativity to demonstrate how moral relativism works. He does not "seize" on the theory and does not use it to "legitimize" his view. Can you find a better source please? (or remove the sentence)

: I can't tell who or when this comment was made, because it lacks the signature (use the signature button above). But I will look for more sites about to support my statement, which should be easy to find. Frankly, I've never heard anyone doubt the statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps you've been listening the wrong people. No reputable explanations of relativity mention moral relativity. Find a reputable one. Don't look for moral relativity explanations that include physics relativity, because that information belongs in [[Moral relativity]], not here. You are researching the wrong topic. Repeat: look for information about the physical theory of relativity and see if you can find one that mentions moral relativity (not pages that talk about moral relativity and mention physical relativity). Furthermore, anyone can set up a web page and say whatever they want, so web pages are generally not a very good resource (unless it's the physics department website at MIT, for instance, because it has credibility in this field). You should find reputable scientific texts. And, please, stick the topic at hand: physical science topics needs physical science resources. There is ample room in the [[Moral relativity]] article to discuss. In fact, I'm surprised you aren't contributing more to that article (especially compared to how much you try add to in this article), since you seem to be very interested in the topic and are more knowledgable about it than physical relativity. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I've received no response. Can I remove the paragraph now? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 16:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::By the way, I checked the history, and MatteeNeutra made the uncited statement above about needing a better source or removing the sentence. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 17:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== <math>e=mc^2</math> not "attributed" to Einstein. ==

<math>e=mc^2</math> isn't just "attributed" to Einstein. When someone says "attributed", they typically mean that someone is given credit for an idea somewhat apocryphally. Einstein obtained the relation in his Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper, in which, from the Lorentz transformations, he obtained the relations:

<math>E = \sqrt{c^4m^2+p^2c^2}</math>
and then, as <math>p\to0</math>:

<math>E=mc^2</math>.

And these bizarre polemics are undermining what little credibility this encyclopedia has. Sneering at Einstein and glorifying the contributions of Ponicare makes all of the sense of arguing over whether Leibniz or Newton invented calculus, particularly since there are very palpable differences between Einstein and Ponicare's treatments of the subjects. And, I see someone has removed the "there is no evidence for the general theory", but I'm sure it will be back by this afternoon. That's ever weirder -- how on earth can someone say that "there is no evidence" and then, in the same article, link to black holes?

I'm not going to go back to that article on [[Dirac Notation]] to fill up all of those links with articles until I'm sure one of the administrators isn't going to replace them with accusations of quantum mechanics being tantamount to the Kabbalah, or something equally stupid. (unsigned)

: It is a fact that Poincare published E=mc2 and most of the rest of special relativity before Einstein. Maybe you think that this is sneering or glorifying, but it is a fact, and there is no serious dispute about it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:17, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: This is true, but what Poincare described was a specific case of E=mc2. An experimental result showed that there was momentum when a body ejected EM radiation, but the mass was unaccounted for. Poincare described the mass of the EM as m=E/c2. Einstein derived this formula from more fundamental assumptions, the speed of light is absolute, etc. This is why his work is so famous. In fact, in all of science, nothing belongs to any one person, even though they may get credit, but are supposedly discovered. Also do not forget that Einstein also published General Relativity.
::Furthermore, while Poincare regarded it as superfluous, scientists of the day were still trying to work with the luminescent ether. Einstein's work proved this unnecessary.
::Again this is a lesson in science. We are always trying to compress and refine our science. Einstein, while he of course drew on other's work and surely knew of Poincare's m=E/c2 paper, his work was more refined and simpler, deriving many principles, Poincare's and new ones, from a few fundamental principles. Poincare published a paper about a month before Einstein with similar work, but in science, no one person makes a discover. Don't forget, Newton has his Hooke. But like Newton, it was Einstein's derivation and formalizations that worked better. (unsigned)

::: Yes, Poincare described was a specific case of E=mc2, but so did Einstein. Einstein did not foresee particle annihilation or nuclear energy. Poincare's description of the ether as superfluous is nearly identical to Einstein's.
::: How was Einstein's work on special relativity any more refined, simpler, or better working? I deny this. Poincare showed a better understanding of the theory than Einstein. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Don't ask me, ask Lorentz. http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm

::::: OK, I looked at your link. The first thing I saw was a claim that the 1919 eclipse proved the General Relativity. We now know that eclipse proved no such thing. So much for the credibility of that link.

::::: The link does show that Lorentz and Einstein were patting each other on the back. That's fine, but it suggests a lack of objectivity towards the odd man out, Poincare. This dispute cannot be resolved by self-interested party, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Can't get much more credible than a publication by Lorentz on Gutenberg, bud. It may be dated, but it is closer to the date of Einstein's work. As far as I see you, you have the burden to prove your claim as much as everyone else has to support the opposite claim. Where is your evidence of credible sources? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 18:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Old version ==

I was just looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_Relativity&oldid=15341 an old version of this page], and the absurdity of the "scientific" claims made, combined with the low quality of the writing and blatant inaccuracies, make the article, quite frankly, almost intellectually offensive. I realize that this has since been rectified, but if this is the quality that is to be expected of Conservapedia articles, then I do not blame those who dismiss it as a failed attempt. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:12, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: be specific in your statements if you expect a response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I find the content reverted to in the above edit to be quite disturbing.

* The General Theory of Relativity does ''not'' reject Isaac Newton's "God-given" theory of gravitation, it simply provides an explanation for ''why'' it functions.

: that was obviously vandalism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* It is most certainly ''not'' a problem that the General Theory of Relativity is based upon mathematics as opposed to empirical evidence, as seems to be insinuated by this version.

: mathematics is mathematics, and unless there is empirical evidence it is not science.

::Mathematics describes physics. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* Albert Einstein's work ''did'' contribute to the development of the nuclear bomb. ''E=mc2'' describes the duality between matter and energy, the principle upon which the nuclear bomb, and all other nuclear devices, functions.

: nope. ''E=mc2'' is a statement of relativistic effect, not atomic power.

::Yes, but the mass lost in the nuclear reaction is converted to energy, which is the fundamental power of the weapon. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* "Nothing useful has even been built based on the theory of relativity." Sure, sure… nuclear power plants aren't useful at ''all'', are they? GPSs aren't useful ''at all'', are they?

: GPSs are useful, but they weren't built using General Relativity.
:: Without realativity describing gravitation redshift, the timing for the GPS satelite would be off by about 45 microseconds/day. Further reading on the matter at http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:08, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: I think Lorenzian relativity accounts for the GPS time dilation more precisely. But that isn't really my point. The GPS clocks are updated based on communications between the satellites and ground stations, not based on any theory. If you claim that GPS is built based on relativity, then you should be able to prove your case with an historical reference. No such proof exists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: That observation does not support the false claim that GPS is based on General Relativity. Other theories predict a dilation of time, and satellites are obviously synchronized based on communication, not theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::No, they have GR corrections built in. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::Can you please cite an alternate theory that accounts for the time dilation experiecned by the GPS satelites along with the math that matches that of relativity? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:17, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* "Most conservatives are skeptical since science is supposed to be about finding proof before a theory becomes a fact, not after." And ''where'' are the statistics that show this?

: Don't know who wrote that statement, but it's a correct statement of what science means.

::I was refering to the claim that "''most'' conservatives are skeptical since science…" (emphasis added) [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* Gravitons are not predicted by general relativity; much to the contrary, the two have not been reconciled.

* It is currently believed that space does indeed have curvature, what is described as "negative" curvature, giving it a saddle-like shape overall, but curvature nonetheless.

The denial of demonstrated principles because they do not coincide with your worldview is not scientific, it's purely reactionary nonsense. I'm not impressed by Examples of Bias in Wikipedia citing Wikipedians taking issue with this as a "bias". [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 16:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: OK, fine, no one is trying to impress you. The Wikipedia entry was biased and demonstrably false, as explained in [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Oh, and I mean no offense to Aschlafly. Although I do not necessarily agree with all his views, I do not wish to disparage him, and I recognize his value as a contributor. I've reconciled with him on this issue, and want to make clear that I do not mean this comment as an attack. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: I just realized that I had somehow managed to fail to see that Aschlafly's edit was a simple revert to a previous version. I don't necessarily agree with the decision, and I don't retract the points with which I take issue, but Aschlafly is not responsible for the content, and I'm sorry for insinuating that he was. I've changed some of my comment to reflect the fact that the edit was simply a revert. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Merge with draft==

There is a draft for this article [[Theory of relativity/draft | here]]. Surely it's about time these two were merged together or at the very least decide which one is to be continued. I will continue to work on Theory of Relativity/draft as I feel it is a much clearer article. What does everyone else think? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 07:33, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: Your draft article has some great stuff in it. Would you like to merge it into the main article now? However, please do not delete anything from the main article as part of the merge. Thanks and a good Easter to you.

: By the way, it appears that relativity is taught in college without using the concept of relativistic mass. But let's go with your relativistic mass as you wrote it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, I'll take a shot at a merge now. Relativistic mass is quite important to the theory, as from it we can determine that matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== This isn't Wikipedia ==

Teji, don't delete facts here that liberals don't like. This isn't Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Please read my explanation above. I don't think anyone likes unsourced information that is in the wrong topic. Please contribute to [[Moral relativity]]. I had to create that page while someone was adding information about it to the this topic. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Furthermore, that link is about moral relativity, not special relativity. It belongs in [[Moral relativity]]. It is shocking that someone so interested in that topic didn't even think to make the article. In fact, I started that article! [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:12, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here is what I said above in case you didn't catch it: ''No reputable explanations of relativity mention moral relativity. Find a reputable one. Don't look for moral relativity explanations that include physics relativity, because that information belongs in Moral relativity, not here. You are researching the wrong topic. Repeat: look for information about the physical theory of relativity and see if you can find one that mentions moral relativity (not pages that talk about moral relativity and mention physical relativity). Furthermore, anyone can set up a web page and say whatever they want, so web pages are generally not a very good resource (unless it's the physics department website at MIT, for instance, because it has credibility in this field). You should find reputable scientific texts. And, please, stick the topic at hand: physical science topics needs physical science resources. There is ample room in the Moral relativity article to discuss. In fact, I'm surprised you aren't contributing more to that article (especially compared to how much you try add to in this article), since you seem to be very interested in the topic and are more knowledgable about it than physical relativity. Teji 13:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)''

:I find it interesting that when you cannot support your information you resort to name-calling and statements about wikipedia. Does this site want credible and accurate information or information with an agenda? Because if it is the latter, please make a statement to that effect in your policy pages, or would that make this website too credible and accurate? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Teji, the statement does not claim that the theory of relativity supports moral relativity, but merely that supporters of moral relativity seized upon the theory of relativity to justify their views. "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views.[3] Historians such as Paul Johnson wrote about how the theory of relativity caused a sea change, justified or not, in 20th century thought." That statement is correct and should not be deleted. Read it, and reread it, and only comment further here if you can provide something that specifically refutes that statement. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:It is in the wrong place. The statement is clearly about [[Moral relativity]]. This statement is also correct: ''Jesus is God'', does it belong in this article? No. Here is another correct statement: ''morality is "what is the good" and ethics is "how do I practice it"'' from the moral relativity site. Does it belong in this artcle? Certainly not. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Correctness is not enough. There also must be accuracy. Information about [[Moral relativity]] belongs in that article. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Maybe you should change the title to just "Relativity". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, how do I do that? We could also make a disambiguation page, but I don't know how to do that either. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::RSchlafly, you've missed the point. This article is about the Theory of Relativity as a scientific theory. As such, the article should not talk about Moral relativity which, apart from sharing using the same word, is absolutely nothing at all to do with the Theory of Relativity. I also, do not think that the sentence about Moral relativity should be put on this article. At the very most a link at the bottom of this article to Moral relativity, but you may as well link it to a page on forestry for all the relevance it has. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 05:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Exactly, if you want to speak about moral relativists using special or general relativity as validation for their philosophy then it should be placed in an articlea bout moral relativism. It should '''not''' be here. Perhaps - perhaps - it could go in a section on the influence of the theory of relativity on 20th century culture.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why was quote about Dicke removed? ==

I added this quote about the Francis Dicke's theory. Aschalfy, why did you remove it without any comments? It is from the same time magazine article that is already cited in this article. It clarifies why Dicke's theory is less professionally accepted! Please read the article yourself. It shows that Einstein's theory was closer than Dicke's.

''But the J.P.L. experimenters reduced the margin of error to 4% or less by locating the distant spacecraft within 100 ft. of their actual position. Thus, when they calculated that the signal to Mariner was slowed down by 204 millionths of a second on its round trip, '''they dealt the Brans-Dicke theory a sharp if not decisive blow'''. Their measurement was only 4 millionths of a second off the Einsteinian prediction, but 18 millionths of a second off the Brans-Dicke figure.'' http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html

This is the same article that that is cited for the statement ''Physicist Robert Dicke of Princeton University was a prominent critic[7]''. The same article that shows why Robert Dicke's theory is not accepted among scientists. Dicke suffered not just because he criticized Einstein's theory, but also because his theory was not as accurate. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Time magazine is not an authority on whether Dicke's theory is better than Einstein's. Our [[rules]] are very clear not to cite journalists as authorities beyond their expertise. A scientific citation that I added shows that Dicke's theory is held in high regard to this day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The JPL isn't?

::: You've got to do better than that if you want a response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: And a link from the JPL http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/70s/release_1970_0566.html --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That's an old self-serving press release about only one study. My footnote about relativity, citing a renaissance in Dicke's theory, is more recent and more comprehensive, and is based on a astrophysics encyclopedia. So your cite is not appropriate.

:::: And another article http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/9404/dicke.html about Dicke's critique of relativity and where it failed to produce a better answer. Tests included sodium lines in the sun, distance to the moon, and precession of Mercury. I do not believe that it is fair to say that the ''theory'' is held in high regard today. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll take a look at this. I must say, however, that any article that starts out by calling its opponent a "crank" lacks credibility. But this cite is worth including to reflect the political bias against Dicke, resulting in his being denied the Nobel Prize.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::It actually specifically says that Dicke was not a "crank." [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Ah, yes. The author charitably concedes that Dicke himself was not a crank, just anyone who supported Dicke's view was.

::::: This article, which I'm reading now, is incredibly biased and one-sided. It declares the "General Theory" to be possibly the "greatest single achievement in physics ... of all time." And the author states his extremely biased view before telling us about testing results. Too bad this conflicts with the encyclopedia I cite in the content page. The value of this article is to show how intolerant supporters of the "General Theory" are of any criticism, including that by Dicke.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: If Dicke's results were as good or better than General Relativity, then there would be no issue at all. It also addresses reference #8 about not getting a Nobel Prize - that is because the prize is for discovery, not interpretations. He wasn't a theoretician and thus didn't have other theories and discoveries. The individual Dicke is held with high regard in the community - his theory is not (though it is respected in developing the framework for relativistic events). I am curious to see a citation that shows his theory as being respected for the results it gives. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::: Also the article you misuse by taking the whole renaissance statement out of says this in the same paragraph before your quote!
::::::::''Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time.''
::::::: [[User:Teji|Teji]] 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Muon experiment from another point of view ==

From the point of view of the muon in the experiment mentioned, time is not slowed down, but rather distance is compressed. So instead of dilating time 5x across 10km of travel at relativistic speed, the muon saw that space had compressed from 10km to 2km (also 5x) and it was still traveling that distance. Thus, the same result - just different perspectives. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:50, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ref: Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was never given a Nobel Prize. ==

I would like to remove this reference. Nobel Prizes are given for discoveries and advancements. Dicke was an experimentalist - not a theorist. He didn't make discoveries or advancements but rather proved or disproved what the theorists came up with. As such, the work he did was not something that was noted by those nominating for the Nobel Prize. Likewise, you won't see a book critic get a Nobel Prize for literature, no matter how good of a critic he or she may be. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:02, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: Given that there has been no comment on this in opposition, I am removing the reference until someone can dispute the question of if any of Dicke's work was the type for which a Nobel Prize would have been given. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:46, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: I'm reverting your change. Experimentalists win the Nobel Prize all the time. A prize was given to someone else for work Dicke was doing. In fact, experimentalists probably win the prize more than theorists. The deletion of that sentence is for liberal purposes, and we don't allow that here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Government support of relativity research problems ==

The section on government support of relativity research needs a big re-write, but it needs to be clear what is intended first. There are several specific complaints which seem to have been jumbled together:
#LIGO was a failure, and the money could have been spent elsewhere.
#Too much money is spent on string theory and similar theories.
#The government does not support research into (unspecified) alternate theories.

#This is just liberal crybabying. Not all experiments work, and you can't know ahead of time which ones will. Most such complaints about too much money being spent on some experimental program are based on the idea of government as sugar-daddy, and whining when sugar-daddy likes someone else best.
#This complaint is more legitimate, as there are serious claims that string theory is not a scientific theory. However, this complaint doesn't belong in this article, because string theory is not relativity; it's an attempt to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics. String theory would replace general relativity, if a coherent theory were formulated, and then tested.
#This complaint seems ridiculous, as the government has funded plenty of tests to verify general relativity; any experimenter who wants to test an alternate theory can devise a test which would produce one result if GR is correct, and another if the alternate theory is true, and ask for funding for a test to verify GR.

On the other hand, perhaps the section could be deleted altogether. [[User:Ultramontanist|Ultramontanist]] 02:02, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== Relativistic mass ==
This paragraph is nonsense:
: 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. But mass is not a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is unacceptable.

The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is. Some don't like the term "relatvistic mass", but for other reasons.

This is also nonsense:
:In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
::1. It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.
:: 2. The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
:: 3. The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

This is not a restatement. Relativity says masses cannot for faster than light. Probably not information either, but that is another principle. Parts 2 and 3 are confusing and misleading, at best. Relativity teaches that there are no inertial frames in the universe. The laws of physics apply throughout the universe. They apply whether there is acceleration or not. But special relativity has more to do with inertial frames.

I suggest getting rid of these "layman's terms". They aren't. They don't clarify anything for anybody. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:29, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== GPS edit ==

Bayes, your claim that GPS is based on the Theory of General Relativity is not correct. GPS synchronization can be done directly, and has never relied on the theory. Your edits should be reverted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:My apologies. I didn't mean to edit recklessly; I thought I was correcting a typo. In fact, the [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html source cited by that sentence] ''before'' I made my edit (and many other sources as well) indicate that relativistic corrections are, in fact, taken into account by GPS receivers. Clocks on the satellites run at different rates than those on the ground due to the fact that they are at a higher altitude, where gravity is weaker; hence the need for a correction for gravitational time dilation, as predicted by general relativity. Yes, that means that clocks in Denver tick slightly faster than clocks in New York. I would be happy to look at any sources you can provide that show how GPS keeps accurate time without those corrections.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:30, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Your citation is to a silly, unsupported and off-hand remark by a professor of astronomy. GPS was built by engineers in the 1970s, who would not have even attempted to calculated the time dilation using relativity. There would be no reason to rely on relativity, since the clocks can be and were synchronized more directly, more simply and more accurately by communicating with them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:09, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::1. Let me reiterate that the citation was there before I made my edit. The previous version denied that relativistic corrections are necessary, and then cited a source to the contrary. Your recent edit makes a similar claim, but cites a source that doesn't delve deeply into technical aspects of how GPS actually works, and is therefore irrelevant to the claim. 
:::2. You can dismiss the citation in question if you like, but it seems that the overwhelming majority of experts disagree; consider [http://www.aticourses.com/global_positioning_system.htm 1] [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp 2] [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf 3], which I doubt would be considered "silly, unsupported and off-hand remark[s]." 
:::3. GPS designers in the 1970s certainly knew about relativistic effects. Here's an exerpt from [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf 3]: 
:::[B]efore the first GPS satellite was launched in 1977, although it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require such a relativistic offset, there was uncertainty as to its magnitude, and even its sign. So correcting frequency synthesizers were built into the clocks, spanning a large enough range around the nominal 10.23 MHz clock frequency to encompass all possibilities. After the satellite's cesium atomic clock was turned on, it was operated for three weeks to measure its rate. The frequency shift measured during this initial period was found to be 4.425 parts per ten billion, agreeing with the relativistic calculation to better than 1%. 
:::4. Yes, communication with the satellites is possible. That doesn't change the fact that satellite clocks run at different rates than ground-based clocks, which would result in huge errors if the satellite clock frequencies weren't compensated for time dilation effects.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:17, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== Criticism of LIGO ==

The criticism of LIGO under the heading "Government funding..." should be viewed in context. The observatories are not yet operating at their maximum level of precision. The usual procedure when building large projects like this is to make sure they work at more imprecise levels, and then "tune" them closer and closer to their limits. It isn't surprising that LIGO has not yet detected gravitational waves, and the consensus is that such waves will be detected in the future. The [http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html cource cited] for that criticism even mentions that physicists are "confident" that LIGO will be successful. After all, the NSF doesn't shell out hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money on a coin flip; they were/are convinced that getting results is a slam dunk.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:48, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

: Hope springs eternal. I'm afraid you sound like an oil-well driller (wildcatter) who, after encountering one dry well after another in a region, says "just spend a little more money and drill again!"

: LIGO has been a disappointment so far, and there is no sign of success right around the corner. At some point accountability is in order, even if more money is to be spent searching gravity waves. Realize that this search has been ongoing for 100 years, without any detection. How many more years are necessary?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:12, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::While I fully agree that accountability for all major budget items is in order at some point, I don't think the oil-driller analogy is valid in this context. LIGO is still far from its designed sensitivity, as mentioned [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJM-4B5R97X-F&_user=1010281&_handle=V-WA-A-W-VB-MsSAYVA-UUW-U-AAVUWVWVAB-AABDYWBWAB-CEYDYDUEB-VB-U&_fmt=summary&_coverDate=01%2F21%2F2004&_rdoc=15&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%235314%232004%23994829998%23476198%21&_cdi=5314&view=c&_acct=C000050264&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1010281&md5=6a930932559a96137a8b6aafdb2d9372 here]. Plans are already underway to do go beyond merely detecting gravitational waves to doing astrophysics with them. Furthermore, detection of gravitational waves requires extreme sensitivity that can only be achieved with modern technology. Serious efforts to detect them didn't begin until the 1960s, when Joseph Weber built his bar detectors, and even then the scientific consensus was that his detectors weren't sensitive enough. Some scientific advances just have to wait for technology to allow their discovery. Tell you what, if LIGO is considered a failure in 10 years, I owe you a Coke.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:40, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::It's been nearly 2 years since your message above, and LIGO has been operational for nearly 7 years. Do you really insist on waiting a full 10 years (after spending a billion dollars) before allowing some accountability? LIGO soaked up a ton of research money that could have been spent on promising technology and potential cures.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

== Other issues ==
There are some other aspects of this article that I would like to consider adding to or changing.
*A fair amount of text is dedicated to Eddington's findings and not many other astronomical observations. Eddington published his results in 1919; obviously, since then, there have been many others who have improved on his observations.
*The "Ostensible Paradoxes" section should be heavily altered or removed; there aren't any paradoxes listed there. First, the SR postulates don't offer any opinion on whether physical constants have had the same value throughout the history of the universe; they state that all inertial observers get the same answer when they measure the speed of light. Second, there are several ways to measure wave velocity; some of the most common are [[group velocity]] and [[phase velocity]]. Both types of velocities can exceed the speed of light (''c'') without violating special relativity. However, the energy velocity and information velocity do not exceed ''c'', also in accordance with SR. There is nothing mysterious or sinister going on here; these concepts are addressed or at least mentioned in many undergraduate courses. Third, the universal constant ''c'' is the speed of light ''in vacuum''; the speed of light ''in materials'' is less than than ''c'' since the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of materials are different than those of vacuum. That means that matter can travel faster than light ''in a material'' without violating SR; try Googling [[Cerenkov radiation]].--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:28, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'm concerned about the use of some citations, which seem to be misrepresented in order to discredit relativity. For instance:
:*The Economist article cited does not attack relativity; it's a discussion of how GR is being tested to its limits, like any other theory. If any improved theory of gravity is found, GR is likely to be a useful subset of it, in the same way that Newtonian gravity is a useful subset of GR. And anyway, I thought non-scientific sources [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_relativity&diff=prev&oldid=95688 weren't supposed to used] in these situations.
:*The new cite for the statement ''There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views'' is an opinion piece about how moral relativists hijacked scientific relativity for their own purposes. The cite doesn't make that claim, and it doesn't show any data to support it. Frankly, I'd be very surprised if any such correlation existed. Even IF that kind of correlation existed, it doesn't belong in a scientific article.

:The overall tone of the article seems to try to convince the reader to be skeptical of relativity. It appears to me that such skepticism is ideologically motivated, e.g., ''Although the liberally biased Wikipedia contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries...'', ''The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project...'', ''There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views''. I don't fully understand the motivation, but it bears repeating that good science (of which relativity is a part) is independent of ideology.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:54, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:: You're not the first to deny a [[liberal bias]] in science. But surely you would agree that the following areas of science, and perhaps nearly of all science, are susceptible to political bias:

**[[global warming]]
**nuclear energy
**the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]
**claims of extraterritorial life
**demands for government funding of science

::--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I absolutely agree that deciding what science to fund, implementation of policies pertaining to scientific findings, or practical use of scientific results (like nuclear weapons), and perhaps some other issues not mentioned are or can be politicized. But I stand by my basic point: if you get a liberal to measure acceleration due to gravity on Earth's surface, and then get a conservative to do the same thing, they'll both get 9.8 m/s^2. Similarly, relativity has been around long enough, has useful applications, and is so successful in predicting experimental outcomes that it should not be subject to the same treatment as the more controversial topics you mention.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:24, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: You apparently don't concede the liberal bias in the majority of my examples above, such as global warming and SDI. When I worked as engineer at a research facility in the 1980s, we had an IBM scientist with impeccable credentials give a presentation claim that SDI was impossible, dangerous, and bad politics. It's silly to pretend that his claim of impossibility of SDI was unrelated to politics. Likewise, it's silly to pretend there is no political bias in global warming theories. But if we can't agree on that, then there is little point in discussing this further. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Did you read the first sentence of my post above? Global warming is an example of tough policy decisions that could be implemented based on scientific findings. Surely both conservatives and liberals agree with the basic finding that the earth is warming. Similarly, the political debate over SDI was about the USE of science and technology, not the FINDINGS of science and technology. Sure, scientists can have opinions about what to do with their findings, but presumably the experimental results are valid across political lines. In any case, this is an aside; my specific concerns with the article, as addressed on this page, still stand. I assume by your willingness to exit the conversation that you don't have any problems with me addressing them?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:48, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Your first sentence omitted any reference to global warming. Global warming is a liberal scientific theory about if and why the earth is warming. Yes, there are political biases in many scientific theories. If you can't accept that, then I urge you to become more open-minded first before trying to pretend that something is immune from politics.

:::: I have no objections to factual edits of this article that add information. I do object to pushing a liberal point of view by deleting factual information. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:02, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: Sounds good. However, the fact that GPS satellite clocks have built-in corrections for relativistic effects is something I inserted previously, and it was reverted. I hope you understand that I brought up these issues in an effort to accurately represent the science, and not because of some agenda. As I've said, I don't think special and general relativity are associated with political controversy.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 19:12, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Bayes, you continue to insist on a falsehood, and I attribute that to [[liberal]] distortions in what you've read elsewhere. Please recognize that politics does distort science. '''GPS satellite clocks were not built based on predictions made by the theory of relativity.'''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: See my post above, where I have cited several sources that assert the contrary. On the other hand, you have yet to provide any evidence of how GPS can work without taking such corrections into account. Your source for that claim does not address timing issues with regard to GPS. I have to say that I'm increasingly baffled by your continued denial of this verifiable fact. How would a vast liberal conspiracy gain from hiding how clocks work?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:00, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Bayes, you're talking to a former engineer. GPS was built by engineers, not by theoretical physicists. GPS never used the theory of relativity. If you continue to dispute that (likely due to [[liberal]] bias), then give me your very best cite for your claim that GPS used the theory of relativity and I'll look at it. Otherwise, drop it and move on to a different issue. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:41, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

GPS and relativity links:
* http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
* http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
* http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm (actual equations)
* http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
* http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~kpgokeef/pubs/ENGO625relativity.pdf (slides from an engineering lecture - see pages 23-30 for listing of relativistic effects GPS accounts for - note conclusions on page 31.)
--[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 21:53, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: No, you're not listening. Give me your best cite for the claim that GPS *uses* the theory of relativity. Pick out your best, that's all I'm going to waste time on, since the answer is obvious to any engineer: GPS never used the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:58, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:: In that case, I should probably reference http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf "GPS And Relativity: An Engineering Overview".
:: The first page introduction finishes with "In this paper, we compare the predictions of relativity to those of intuitive, classical, Newtonian physics; we show how large or small the differences are, and how and what applications those difference are large enough to make it necessary to correct the formulas of classical physics."
:: Lorentz Contraction is covered on page 2, Gravitational redshift on page 3, and the acceleration of the satellite on page 4.
::: "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 -4.45x10-10 (= -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."
:: Does that help answer the question? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 22:22, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::: The very first sentences of this paper prove my point (emphasis added):

:::: 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 - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: 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 remainder of the paper is theoretical speculation about how a future GPS system might use relativity. There is disagreement about how relativity might be used, as reflected by comments in the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:05, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: The remainder of the paper is about improvements to the GPS system. The paper was published in '97. In 2001, the system was updated. With Block II GPS satelites, OCS was rewritten so that it doesn't require constant updates from ground stations to reset the clocks http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/mail/igsreport/1994/msg00146.html (example of clock reset for relativity prior to 2001). Instead, now, accounting for relativity constantly the GPS satellites are able to offer much more accurate positioning (this was required, as mentioned by the paper I previously linked, the 6 meter accuracy - it is now required by the 2001 performance standard http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/2001SPSPerformanceStandardFINAL.pdf (page 20 of the document, section 3.4) . If you are willing to reset the clock periodically and accept errors between clock resets - then you can discount relativity. If you want high accuracy all the time, you must take relativity into account between synchronizations. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:58, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: The remainder of the paper is about '''proposed''' improvements to the GPS system. There is nothing indicating that those proposals were ever implemented. So that paper strikes out as support for the claim that GPS relies on relativity.

::::: Now you're pointing me to a new paper. I'll look at it in the morning but, as I said, pick your best one. If this paper strikes out also then I'm unlikely to keep looking at more and more papers to explain why each one fails to support the claim. Please provide your very best cite, as I requested before. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:07, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::How about [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf this one], written by [http://www.colorado.edu/physics/Web/directory/faculty/ashby_n.html Neil Ashby] for [http://www.physicstoday.org/ Physics Today], a major publication of the AIP. Again, I quote from a portion, although the entire paper is about the issue in question:

:::::"[B]efore the first GPS satellite was launched in 1977, although it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require such a relativistic offset, there was uncertainty as to its magnitude, and even its sign. So correcting frequency synthesizers were built into the clocks, spanning a large enough range around the nominal 10.23 MHz clock frequency to encompass all possibilities. After the satellite's cesium atomic clock was turned on, it was operated for three weeks to measure its rate. The frequency shift measured during this initial period was found to be 4.425 parts per ten billion, agreeing with the relativistic calculation to better than 1%."

::::You've now been presented with many sources from Rutm and I supporting GR implementation in GPS, and you have yet to produce one source that says that GPS works on only classical principles. Furthermore, I question your motivation in demanding one "best" source, since I anticipate that you will attempt to attack the "best source," perhaps by invoking "liberal bias" (as if it existed in this case--either the clocks run at different frequencies or they don't), ignoring the vast consensus, and proclaim "victory."--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 10:56, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, I think I now (finally!) understand what's going on. I think we have a misunderstanding here; we're talking about two different kinds of corrections. The paper supplied by Rutm (and quoted in the current article) is discussing relativistic corrections to the frequency of signals measured by the receivers. That paper is from the early 1990s, and at that time no relativistic corrections were performed for those signals (though corrections might be taken into account now). Throughout this discussion, I have been referring to the fact that clocks on GPS space vehicles have ALWAYS had built-in frequency offsets to account for the relativistic effects on moving clocks and clocks in gravitational potentials. It's a question of corrections made to the '''communications''' between GPS components and the '''on-board clocks''' of the satellites; the former are not as important, while the latter are very important. Any problems with inserting this nuance into the article?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 19:14, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Andy, that GPS quote is extremely misleading. It implies that the relativistic effects are too small to be significant. But the rest of the paragraph explains that relativistic corrections are necessary to meet the accuracy requirements of most users. The article is incorrect when it states, "Predictions of relativity have not historically been used to make the Global Positioning System (GPS) function properly." Relativity has in fact been used, and programmed into satellites and receivers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:48, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:That's simply not true. GPS adjustments have been based on observation, not theoretical prediction. Effects predicted by relativity are offsetting to each other and the experts could not even agree in which direction the small net effect would be.
:This is a matter of historical fact and it's astonishing that the demands to rewrite history about this are so persistent. The quote confirms the obvious: GPS adjustments are based on observation, not theoretical prediction.
:For those who claim to have such a thorough understanding of GPS here, how about answering the question below: does Newtonian mechanics predict any divergence in the clocks from the satellite compared to ground? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: No, the fact is that the GPS satellites have operated both with and without the relativistic corrections. The cited articles confirm that. You are completely wrong to say that relativistic corrections have not been used.
:: The relativistic corrections partially offset each other, but not entirely, and they are big enough to affect accuracy in a typical consumer GPS unit. It is also false to say that there is disagreement among physicists on the point.
:: If you were right, then find an article that supports what you say. That paragraph you quote ends with "large enough to make it necessary to correct the formulas of classical physics." Include that, and give the date on the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:09, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:The article first states the obvious: GPS is not designed using the theory of relativity. Then the article discusses an ongoing and unresolved dispute about exactly what the theory of relativity does predict for the numerous factors involved in the GPS system, and makes its own unverified claims. Relativity predicts time differences going in both directions, and there are issues about what the inertial frame should be. One article cited earlier, which I will try to find and reinsert, states that Lorentzian (not Special) Relativity generally matches observations best.

:GPS was built by engineers and there is no reason for them to rely on the theory of relativity. It is far simpler and more reliable simply to observe the time differences. Engineers don't study the theory of relativity, and if you think a physicist well-versed in the theory of relativity provided essential predictions for the GPS engineers, then who was he? Give us his name and he we can simply ask him. Was he nominated for a Nobel prize? Surely he would have at least published a paper about his work. Where is it????

:And where is the answer to the question as to whether Newtonian mechanics predicts time difference in the GPS system also? After all, if someone is going to claim that GPS confirms the superiority of relativity to Newtonian mechanics, then surely he must first make a statement about whether Newtonian mechanics predicts a time difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:56, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: What you say is just not true. GPS was designed with an understanding of the magnitude of the relativistic effects. The effects are well-understood, and no one was nominated for a Nobel prize for predicting the effects. Yes, there were engineers who didn't study relativity and didn't think that relativistic effects would be significant. They have been proven wrong. There are no unresolved disputes. You have been given several references that tell the story. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:41, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

::: To sum:

*** no physicists have been identified who supposedly incorporated relativity into the GPS design
*** no papers exist describing how relativity *was* (not "might be") used in GPS
*** references that have been provided describe disagreements among physicists about the relativistic predictions for GPS
*** those claiming that GPS confirms relativity compared to Newtonian mechanics don't know whether Newtonian mechanics also predicts time differences, which renders the comparison pointless.

::: I realize that historical revisionism is common in many areas, but I would hope that science would adhere to a higher standard. Sometimes, unfortunately, science seems be even more vulnerable to revisionism. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:04, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: I will respond to this post below, under "Question about GPS"--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 13:55, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: As Bayes explains, the papers do say that relativity was used in GPS. Just what is the disagreement among physicists? I didn't see any in your references. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:43, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: No, none of the papers state that a physicist or group of physicists provided the complex relativistic predictions and that those predictions were incorporated into a particular GPS system. Engineers don't study relativity, and if physicists provided these predictions to a GPS system then there would be (a) names of physicists, (b) dates of incorporation, and (c) adjustments based on results. None of this happened.

::::: The claim that relativistic predictions were actually used in an actual GPS system wouldn't last 5 minutes on a witness stand at trial. It's pure fiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:20, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Theory of Relativity (moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]) ==

I found it offensive that you labelled my edit a "liberal edit". I was not aware of the Corpuscular Theory of Light, and therefore I did not know what "Newton's theory" in that sentence was referring to. Since there was no link (as there is now) to a page which shows Einstein's formula being two times more than his previous one, which was stated to be same as Newton's, I changed the sentence to the best of my knowledge - that light was viewed as a wave through ether at Newton's time, and therefore his theory of gravity does not apply.

How my mistake is a "liberal edit" is beyond me.
[[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:47, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: Please accept my apologies. By way of explanation, not as justification, liberals love relativism and their spin on the theory of relativity, and exaggerate everything associated with it. Claiming that relativity predicts the bending of light while Newton did not is one of those exaggerations. A simple search on the internet before deleting something here is always advisable, and that simple search reveals how Newton's theory predicts the bending of light too (though not by as much). I think this Newtonian prediction is in high school physics problem books, so it is not obscure.

: Regardless, thanks for your efforts and I look forward to more additions by you here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::I'll search the internet before making changes next time. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:04, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Ashlafly, I am concerned about the overall tone of the [[relativity]] article. Some statements suggest the presence of an anti-relativity agenda. Am I correct in guessing that this stance is due to a perceived link between moral relativism, the Democratic party, and the scientific concept of relativity? If so, I'd like to point out that while scientific funding by the government is certainly a political issue, actual scientific research is a separate issue and is independent of political leanings. The outcome of a proper experiment does not depend on whether the scientists conducting it are conservative or liberal. You are indeed justified if you are objecting to overzealous extrapolations based on scientific findings (such as moral relativism being based on scientific relativity), but such extrapolations have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific findings themselves. IMHO, encyclopedic articles on the scientific concept of relativity should stick to the science and not go into philosophy or politics. Furthermore, criticism of concepts such as moral relativism should be concerned with the merits (or lack thereof) of the concepts themselves, not on sound science that has nothing to do with it. Attempts to discredit relativity because of perceived links to philosohical or political positions that one disagrees with are not scientific, and fly in the face of undeniable experimental verification, basic facts (like how GPS satellite clocks function) and essentially universal acceptance of at least the basic principles. If you would like to incorporate some of the material on the current relativity page into a separate article, such as [[Historical views of relativity]], a personal essay, or something similar, then I would be all for it. I have not yet edited the relativity article heavily, but please see [[Talk:Theory of relativity]] for some of my specific conerns.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:56, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: I have already responded to this above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:32, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

== Question about GPS ==
Does Newtonian mechanics predict that clocks on GPS satellites will diverge from clocks on earth? That is not an easy question to answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:32, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:As far as I'm aware, no. It's relativity that predicts that there will be a divergence in time, for reasons already discussed. However, I want to throw in: both of you aruging about whether GPS satellites use relativity are correct in certain ways. Andy, you're correct that there is no actual use of relativity on the circuits on board the satellite. For those arguing that relativity is used, you're correct too; based on predictions from both general and special relativity, the clocks on the satellites are fine tuned with an offset to minimize the nano-second order deviations from clocks on the ground. Then, for practical purposes, newtonian based approximations are acceptable accuracy-wise. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 14:08, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

: Mr. Schlafly, I apologize for not responding more quickly. Newtonian mechanics cannot account for the observed divergence in clock rates. Classically, inertial reference frames are related by [[Galilean transformations]]:

:: x' = x + vt
:: t' = t

:: where x and x' are positions in the rest and moving frame, respectively
:: t and t' are times in the rest and moving frame, respectively
:: v is the velocity of the moving frame relative to the rest frame. Note that frame labels like "rest" and "moving" are arbitrary.

: According to those transformations, time in all inertial frames is the same (t' = t), and therefore no time dilation is predicted. However, the Lorentz transformations that relate inertial frames according to special relativity DO predict time dilation. So that would allow for corrections based on the relative speeds of the satellites. However, you could reconcile the time difference using classical mechanics IF you assert that the speed of light in the moving frame is different from the speed of light in the rest frame; that would essentially mean that the satellites are measuring a different light speed than the earth is. Such assertions would conflict with experimental evidence.

: Another, more significant time dilation effect is due to gravitational time dilation, predicted by general relativity, which is dependent on the curvature of spacetime. Newtonian gravity incorporates an "action at a distance" principle and does not incorporate spacetime curvature, and therefore predicts no gravitational time dilation.

: Also, your statement that no sources have been provided showing that corrections for relativistic effects were historically incorporated is incorrect, as I have twice quoted from a Physics Today article (see above) showing that devices allowing for such corrections to clock frequencies were used when the satellites were first launched. I'm still convinced we have a misunderstanding; the satellite clock frequencies have used and do need relativistic corrections, but once those corrections are implemented, Newtonian physics works fine for communication and position calculations (although some sources seem to indicate that may not be true for fast-moving objects, like jets and so forth). However, you have successfully convinced me that there is something of a political element in some areas of science :)--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:40, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Bayes, it's wrong to assert that Newtonian mechanics does not predict time differences in GPS clocks. You can't build a clock that would be uneffected by acceleration under Newtonian mechanics.
:: Let's be frank for a moment. It's absurd to insist that an experiment proves theory A is superior to theory B when there is no understanding of what theory B even says about the experiment. Theory A may indeed be better than theory B, but superiority is not demonstrated by that experiment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:26, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::: You got a physics paper saying that relativity explains the GPS clock differences to within 1%. There is no Newtonian explanation for the differences. Just give the fact, and let the reader decide which theory is superior. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:48, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: The paper does not demonstrate that relativity predictions were incorporated into GPS. No paper demonstrates that.
:::: A few (not many) papers claim that observed GPS clock differences can be explained by relativity. That is a very different claim, and requires examining carefully the assumptions made in the calculations to justify a claim that the theory matches an observed result. It also requires comparing the calculations to Newtonian calculations, which the papers utterly fail to do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: Yes, of course those papers compare to Newtonian calculations. That is why they are called "GPS clock differences". They are the differences between the relativistic and Newtonian calculations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: No they don't. Those few papers attempting to match relativity theory with GPS clock results all implicitly assume that the effects on the accelerated clocks from Newtonian mechanics are zero. That is likely wrong. And that explains why there are so few papers and so few physicists who claim personally to have confirmed GPS results with relativity theory.

:::::: If GPS results really did confirm relativity theory, then this would be in textbooks and classroom assignments. It isn't. Only a few obscure physicists even make the claim asserted here, and because they implicitly make the assumption that Newtonian effects are zero, their claims are not credible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: Yes, of course the Newtonian effect on time are zero. What are you suggesting -- that some unknown Newtonian effect might predict a GPS clock difference that just happens to match the relativistic calculation? The fact remains that the GPS clock differences are predicted by relativity, and not by any other theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: There is a Newtonian effect on the clocks. Yet this was not even addressed by a few obscure physicists who claim to derive, using relativity while disagreeing with other experts, the exact same result as the observed GPS time differences. This omission hardly inspires confidence in their unverified work. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: It wasn't addressed because it doesn't exist. Do you have any reliable source that says that a Newtonian effect can explain the observed GPS time differences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:13, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: And if there is no such paper, then the relativity claim about GPS must be true??? No, the relativity claim about GPS needs to stand on far better logic than that.

::::::::: In fact, the few papers claiming relatitivy is confirmed by GPS, written by obscure physicists, overlooked the Newtonian effects on the clocks. If you think you can build a clock immune from Newtonian effects, then patent it immediately. Can't be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:49, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

<----

Please identify the calculations that predict a difference in time. Bayes has already shown that time in all inertial reference frames is equal and identified how he derived this statement, so there's obviously something we're missing. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:57, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Andy, if there is no paper saying that a Newtonian effect can explain the observed GPS time differences, then it is correct to say that relativity provides the only known explanation for those differences. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: No, we shouldn't accept the equivalent of "relative proof." Just because a flawed proof or claim is better than other flawed proofs or claims does not mean it is acceptable. Would any mathematician embrace a flawed proof because it is better than other flawed attempts to prove the same theorem? I don't think so. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:: If you don't want to call it a "relative proof", that's fine with me. I am just correcting errors. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:06, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::: Here are the facts:

:::*GPS satellite clocks have mechanisms to correct for frequency offsets caused by time dilation. I don't see how this can be disputed, unless you want to stubbornly deny that such devices exist, in which case you can claim that cars don't have engines.

:::: It hasn't been proven that the frequency offsets are due to "time dilation." Instead, you assume what you claim to prove. Your logic is circular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*Newtonian mechanics does not predict ANY time dilation because it regards time as absolute, even in accelerating frames. Again, I don't see how this can be reasonably disputed, outside of winning a Nobel Prize. There are no reputable sources that predict Newtonian time dilation because there is no Newtonian time dilation.

:::: No one said that Newtonian mechanics does predict time dilation. This is a strawman argument. What is true is that Newtonian mechanics effects the operation of clocks in accelerating frames.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*Relativity does predict time dilation. All reputable physicists (not just a few obscure ones) can attest to that.

:::: OK, this is true, but purely theoretical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*The predictions of relativity are in good agreement with the frequency offsets on GPS satellite clocks. Several papers on the topic have been cited on this page.

:::: A few papers by obscure physicists have made this claim, but these papers raise questions like disagreements among relativists and a failure to address Newtonian effects on the clocks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::If you want to flat-out deny the above, then I guess I shouldn't waste my time trying to improve the article. I'll also point out that some significant creationist ideas depend on relativity to explain the starlight problem (God creating the Earth inside a massive gravitational field), so it's not an amoral atheist conspiracy.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:57, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: Relativists love to exaggerate relativity. Earlier, someone here claimed (based on what he had been taught by relativists) that only relativity predicts the bending of light from gravity. Wrong again. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

<---

You state, ''"No one said that Newtonian mechanics does predict time dilation...What is true is that Newtonian mechanics effects [sic] the operation of clocks in accelerating frames."'' Those sentences are contradictory. Newtonian mechanics does NOT predict any difference in the operation of clocks. Furthermore, what do the frequency offsets do if they don't compensate for time dilation?? Are they decorative?? Clock frequencies have to be adjusted ''because the clocks run at different rates''. And whatever extrapolations "relativists" come up with have nothing to do with the science.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:36, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that's correct. If you wanted to make an anti-relativity statement, I think that here is the most that you could say correctly is this:

* GPS does not prove relativity, in the sense that no experiment ever proves a theory. There is always the possibility that someone will come along later with a better explanation.

* Being able to calculate the relativistic corrections is not truly essential to making GPS work. Nowadays the satellite clocks are synchronized so frequently that predicting the clock drift is not necessary. If relativity were never discovered, then the satellite corrections could be made without anyone realizing that the system was just adding relativistic corrections. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:02, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::RSchlafly, although I disagree with your decision to remove some of the discussion here, I agree with your position. My only issue is that your second bullet still leaves open the question of why the clocks drift, or why they need to be synchronized often, and implies that we don't have a good explanation. However, we do have a pretty good explanation--relativity can predict such discrepancy to high precision. If GPS is mentioned in the article, I would prefer that we insert language similar to "Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth. Currently, relativity provides the best explanation for such adjustments (insert refs)" Does that sound any better? I'm open other suggestions.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 16:28, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't know what you mean about my "decision to remove some of the discussion here". What discussion did I remove? I did want to remove the 1996 quote because it is out-of-date and out-of-context. Anyway, I inserted your proposed 2 sentences. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:01, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: I was referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ATheory_of_relativity&diff=259155&oldid=259114 this edit]. Anyway, not that big of a deal now; I appreciate your attempt to fix the article, although those attempts have now been effectively neutered [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=next&oldid=259513] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=next&oldid=259528]. The GPS section has now grown so large that it may now detract from learning about relativity. I wonder if it is not better placed on the GPS article rather than this one.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 12:19, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: Sorry, I apparently accidentally lost some comments. I just tried to restore them. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:53, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

==Skepticism==
Edits like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=259513&oldid=259511 this one] made in the last few days are again consistent with the overall skepticism for relativity present in the article. The physicist in question is indeed involved in research into alternatives to general relativity. He appears to support [http://ecolloq.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/2001-Spring/announce.alley.html Yilmaz theory], which is not especially well-regarded by the scientific community [http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/ASGRG/ACGRG1/fackerell.html] [http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504050]. Even if it turned out to be an improvement on GR, it would still predict time dilation and other relativity-esque things, so I don't see what would be gained by denying all of GR but then embracing Yilmaz theory. GR is constantly being tested because a.) it is in conflict with quantum mechanics and b.) it is the current gold standard for theories of gravitation, and the limits of current gold standards are where new physics lie. Physicists I know who are doing research on alternative theories of gravitation teach classes on relativity, and emphasize its success; they aren't "skeptics" who want to throw it in the trash. Improvements on GR are likely to include GR as an approximation, as Newtonian mechanics is an approximation to GR.

Relativity is the current best idea we have to explain a lot of things and works to within experimental uncertainty for all tests of it performed so far. This article should reflect that success instead of embarking on a misguided ideological quest to discredit it in favor of Newtonian mechanics, which is known to have limits. And what I've said applies to GR; SR is even more established. Aschlafly, your problem with relativity appears to be that it is called "relativity" which you believe allows it to somehow be associated with moral relativism. Would your objections still hold if it were named "Reference Frame Theory"? Please remove the skeptical claims, as their inclusion implies willful ignorance to anyone who visits this page.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:37, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, we're factual on this site. Exaggerations about the theory of relativity or anything else are not allowed here. For example, one editor here claimed that relativity predicts the bending of light but that Newtonian mechanics does not. That is false. Some of the claims here about GPS using relativity have also been false. This isn't allowed in a credible encyclopedia. Go to Wikipedia if you want to stretch or distort the truth to suit your personal views about what the facts should be. Here we state what the facts are.

: Similarly, we don't delete or censor factual scientific information here. You recently deleted factual information without justification, and your deletion has been reverted. Please abide by our [[rules]]. Thank you and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:21, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Andy, I don't get the point of your edits. Under Ostensible Paradoxes, you have a 2001 article that says "If confirmed, the finding could mean ...". That was 6 years ago. Was it confirmed, or not? The following results are somewhat interesting, but obscure. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:14, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

== Nasa on spacecraft and relativity ==

Three of the items found with a quick search:
* Cassini refines measurements of general relativity with its trip around the sun [http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm]
* Voyager 1's slingshot around Saturn showed frequency shifts in agreement with relativity [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html]
* Gravity Probe B is a satellite launched and demonstrates frame dragging and geodetic warping of space [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html][http://einstein.stanford.edu/]
Given these examples, I believe the passage recently added:
:In addition to GPS discussed above, NASA has launched numerous space probes and missions, but none of them have ever used the theory of relativity in their timing mechanisms even though they experience much weaker gravitational fields in space.
is inappropriate and misleading. Even if the space craft where not ''designed'' with relativity in mind (the Gravity Probe B certainly was designed with it in mind), Voyager and Cassini and others demonstrated the effects of relativity as they dipped into gravity wells and out of them with the frequency of the signal being sent to Earth. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 12:47, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:: The current statement is correct in the entry and we do not delete correct, educational information here. You cite some interesting articles which could also be added if they are given detail and explanation suitable for a high-quality encyclopedia. I took a quick look at your articles and they seem to be designed for public consumption, lacking satisfactory detail of a scientific level. But feel free to add a paragraph '''without exaggeration''' that explains clearly what you think these experiments demonstrate. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The [[libera]] edits and censorship have been reverted. This is not [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 17 December 2007 (EST)

I'm not trying to be liberal or censor, but I doubt anyone thought any less of Dicke due to his support of Brans-Dicke - which is merely the addition of a scalar field to the tensor of GR - in fact, all of einsteinan GR is viable under Brans-Dicke - if the scalar field is set to null - the difference is the allowable effect of long-distance large masses that is not rsquared. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 15:16, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:Um... this is supposed to be targetted towards high school students. Your really doing nothing but babbling to me, because I don't understand what you're talking about. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 20:04, 17 December 2007 (EST)

I made a change that was first related. Even by the methods that science uses to deny christian beliefs they both fail. Putting it that way is a little stronger, as well as more accurate. It's kind of hard to say that "string theory" has been a failure when just about every physicist who wants to work these days needs to learn and be productive in it. It's just entirely "thought experiments" though, and quirking math to make it fit. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 20:02, 17 December 2007 (EST)

If this article is directed at high school students, Dicke would not be mentioned, as his contribution to the theory of relativity was limited. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 09:11, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:His importance to this article for Conservapedia is that he believed in something other than General Relativity, and although very intelligent, never received a Nobel Prize for any of his findings. The point being made is that if you disagree with GR, that you won't get a Nobel Prize. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:13, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Why you would disagree with GR is beyond me, but… --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 14:16, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Whether or not I disagree with GR is irrelevant. This wiki has a goal and purpose, and you need speak toward that audience. The intention of this article is to question and critique GR, not to assume that it is automatically true. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:21, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::You realize that what [[User:PhysicsNut|PhysicsNut]] was explaining - as I understood it - was that Dicke ''didn't'' really believe in something other than General Relativity? All that "babbling" was describing why Brans-Dicke theory differs little from GR (PhysicsNut, feel free to correct me on this). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:19, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::: That's correct. Brans-Dicke with Omega approaching infinity is General Relativity per Einstein. At no point did Dicke doubt that matter bent space-time. He merely postulated that there was another effect of matter that was not an r-squared effect. He didn't win the Nobel because someone else heard the CBR first - Dicke was just the one who realized it was proof-positive of the Big Bang. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 16:44, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::: It's bias to insist on describing theories that compete with relativity in terms of relativity. Also, the explanation for why Dicke, one of the finest physicists of the 20th century responsible for ''multiple breakthroughs'', did not win a [[Nobel Prize]] is not as plausible as the reason given.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Says who? Don't we need "authoritive sources for all the changes you want to make," or is your insinuation that Professor Dicke (who proved the Big Bang as his most notable breakthrough) was a young-earth creationist enough? [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 20:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)

This article is an embarrassment. Whatever - this project is obviously doomed. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 21:05, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Your attitude is completely unhelpful. You should not continue to post. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:21, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Maybe so, Puellanivis, but still, try not to write off editors so quickly! [[User:Physicsnut|Phyiscsnut]] is only new here, and may not have understood how [[Conservapedia]] differs from [[Wikipedia]] or other [[MSM]] outlets. Many editors have moved beyond initial misunderstandings to find ways to contribute positively to Conservapedia, despite ideological differences - so you needn't necessarily drive them off right away. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:06, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::: I don't why there are so many edits to the content page here, and I'll have to sort through them again. Relativity is a magnet for [[liberal bias]], but we're not going to allow such bias here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:21, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::Feebasfactor, your point is very well received. I definitely agree with your point. But people will not get anywhere without discussing and considering. If they express an attitude that this site will never be helpful if it rejects their viewpoint, then that's just silly. Aschlafly, I believe I had cleared it up fairly well with my last revert, but please feel free to review it. I think it attracts so much liberal bias, because they feel like it's home turf, or something, and get mad when anyone insults it. I suppose it's kind of the same thing as the liberals insulting the Bible. It just evokes such a strong response, that liberals get stupid (more so) and don't stop think and consider. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 00:27, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::: Insult relativity all you want. Insult the memory of Robert Dicke and you can rot. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 20:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Physicsnut, you're making no sense. Please don't pollute our pages with namecalling nonsense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:11, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Nobel Prize Contradiction ==

In the beginning of the section Evidence for Relativity you state that, "There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity." This is part of your reasoning as to why GR is not scientifically viable, yet in the section Philosophical Impact of Relativity you state that Robert Dicke is still a an accomplished physician despite his never being awarded any Nobel Prizes. Now it seems to me that if you wish to still credit Robert Dicke as an accomplished physician, which is certainly true, then it would seem only fair to leave out the comment about GR never gaining Nobel recognition. At least not in the context of trying to discredit it. You can't have it both ways. Either it's possible to be reliable and not gain Nobel recognition, or not gaining Nobel recognition speaks to the validity of the subject. One or the other; can't be both. --[[User:Aralith|Aralith]]

: Your logic is defective, because Robert Dicke (physicist, not a physician) was slighted due to bias ''in favor of the theory of relativity''. That bias obviously does not explain the lack of Nobel Prizes for relativity. It's the lack of evidence that is the reason there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:: If the Theory of Relativity is so commonly accepted among physicists (meant to write that in the last post but the wrong word came out of my fingers) how could it be that the Theory of Relativity hasn't gained Nobel recognition, which is voted on by a commitee made up of the same scientists who support said theory unless it is possible for a subject (person, theory, etc.) to be extremely important but not Nobel Prize worthy? In which case it makes perfect logical sense that both Dicke and GR could be a great person/theory respectively but not gain recognition from the Nobel committee.

== legal right to abortion ==

"For example, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama helped publish an article by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to abortion.[39]"

Unfortunately there is no link to the article in question. It would interest me much what the right to abortion has to do with the alleged curvature of space. Either the space is curved, or it isn't. Neither of both could ever affect my moral convictions.

{{unsigned|Harald}}

:This entire section is ridiculous and irrelevant. Clearly the curvature of spacetime was being referred to as a metaphor. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]]

::Please rewrite the section and/or move text to other articles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Where is the reference to Obama helping publish the article? The current reference points to the JSTOR article abstract, which does not mention Obama's involvement whatsoever. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 15:33, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

== Paradoxes? Nobel Prize? ==

Why are these things labeled as paradoxes? The rule is the speed of light IN A VACUUM is constant WITH RESPECT TO INERTIAL FRAME. The variability of c (the speed of light) through a medium is accepted and irrelevant as far as SR is concerned. That is due to the absorption and reemission of photons by atoms as light hits travels through glass (or air or fiber optics cable). Similarly, relativity neither prohibits nor "encourages" a c that varies with the age of the universe. Indeed, the nature of the constant is still a mystery, and it may indeed be dependent on some factors we are unaware of.

If anyone is confused, shoot me an email and I'll either give you a full explanation or point you in the direction of a good resource.

Also, there are several reasons Einstein never received a Nobel Prize for relativity:

-he recieved a prize for the photoelectric effect,which has laid the framework for quantum mechanics (arguably just as important). They may have had qualms over giving two to the same person (they haven't done it yet).

-initially, there was some resistance against it by the old guard of physicists who had wasted their lives pursuing the alternative (and stupid) ether explanation for the nature of c.

-the Nobel committee favors ideas that have practical applications (hence no prize for mathematics), and at the time relativity had none.

-as to why they haven't given him one recently...well, Einstein's dead, and they don't give prizes posthumously. (A sticking point, since the full significance of a theory might only be fully realized generations after its inception).

So saying the Nobel prize hasn't recognized Einstein for relativity is misleading and irrelevant.

And now I'm curious. This article seems to have an anti-relativity bias. Why is relativity unAmerican or unChristian (besides the fact that Einstein was a German Jew)?

And what's up with the Obama reference? I don't think God asks politicians (liberal or conservative) for their opinions when he establishes His natural law. (unsigned by User:QED)

:I looked at your edits for this and found them to be wanting. The information on the Nobel committee is accurate. It's a small part of the article and no specific conclusions are stated from it. I can see why you would believe this is not a slight on relatively, nevertheless it is true as written. In the absense of any counter evidence, such as writings by the Nobel committee explaining this, it should be allowed to stand. Your other point is, temporarily, out of bounds. You may believe that relativity allows for faster than light movement 'virtually', but unless you have a source, it's not going to be included. In other words your conjecture is not going to trump a source that appears to take a neutral position.

:Lastly, do not try to play the minority card again. You aren't Johnny Cochran. The article on Einstein is extensive and written with great respect. I'm assuming you could already have checked it up to see the view on him at CP. Consider this to be your one and only warning in this area. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:38, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:: User: Learn together's analysis is superb. The polemic comments above by QED seem to have little relation to the actual entry here, or to science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

== Questions ==

The introduction refers to "a principle which led to the first theory", but as far as I can see, there's no further reference to or explanation of this. What is this referring to?

It's been asked a couple of times above, but not answered as far as I can see: What relevance does Obama's comment have in this article?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:54, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: The reference to "principle" should be to postulates. That's been fixed. The reference to Obama is explained enough, don't you think? It describes political support for the theory, and use (or misuse) of it for political gain.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:45, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
:: It hasn't been explained on this talk page at all. Harald asked the question above, Kristkrispies added a criticism, and the only reply was from Ed Poor suggesting the section be rewritten. QED asked about it also, and the reply didn't address that point.
:: However, rereading the footnote (or did I miss that before?), I can see a very tenuous connection, but not one that warrants it being included in this article. I suggest it be removed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:44, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, I'm assuming you're referring to the Obama reference. The heading explains it. Political insights are a key part of this site, and explaining [[political benefit]] to something is essential to understanding why it is emphasized and/or misrepresented. The [[theory of relativity]] is used, or misused, to advance [[liberal]] goals, and the Obama reference is an important illustration of that. Would you like to see more examples?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Yes, I was referring to the Obama reference. Not, it's actually the opposite of the heading, because it is (mis)using relativity (physics) to support something political, not political support of relativity which is what the heading refers to. And as such, it's only of marginal if any real relevance to an article about relativity. I guess, though, I can see ''some'' point in it. That is, it's like an article about [[comet]]s mentioning that there was a musical group named [[The Comets]]; a bit of barely-related trivia, but the sort of thing that Wikipedia and Conservapedia sometimes do (often under the heading of "cultural references"). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

== My edits ==
I added a bit more information in the introduction to general relativity, because, as written, the article didn't really explain what the idea behind general relativity was. I don't think the edit is perfect, so people are free to tweak it or add more.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:12, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I also deleted "at infinite speed" from the sentence that said in classical physics light travels at infinite speed in a straight line. In classical physics, light still travels at c (approx 300,000 km/s), as Maxwell or any book on electrodynamics can tell you. In fact, it was this very observation that got people all caught up in the ether theory, because Maxwell's equations made direct reference to the speed of light. Consequently, people assumed that the equations had to be referring to the speed of light with respect to some fixed medium, i.e., the ether. Of course, we all know how well that theory worked out.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:21, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I removed the sentence about the Nobel prize committee not recognizing SR/GR in the evidence for SR/GR section. Mostly, the sentence just seems out of place with the rest of the section. Also, the reference provided was just a link to the Nobel committee homepage.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:49, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I removed the last section: time dilation and creation science. If we start including every crackpot scientific theory ever proposed, this page is going to become enormous.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 14:00, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:I see you are not around to respond, but including the latest creationary thinking doesn't mean that crackpot theories will be included. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== New Edits, Proposed edits ==
This article needs some major work, and I don't mind diving in and trying to correct some things. I added something on the equivalence principle because the existing information about general relativity was mostly mathematical with no physical insight. I'll try to clean up more when I have more time. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I also corrected a mistake about force defined in special relativity. The way it was written it wasn't defining a vector. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Further, I would really like to clean up the experimental evidence section, but there appears to be some contention regarding GPS, so I thought I'd discuss it with other editors here. The GPS definately DOES include some relativistic corrections. Consider the 1996 paper referenced in the article, on page 193 of the journal, page 5 of the article the authors tell us "The GPS operational control system corrects the pseudoranges measured by its monitor stations for the sum of the gravitational and velocity effects." What the article discusses is that the corrections are merely the average corrections, not the full specific velocity/gravitational effects. The article is being used misleadingly to make an unsupported claim. If no one objects in a day or two, I'll make the changes. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I'd also like to remove the stress on Dicke's theory, as Dicke's theory is basically just an extension of GR. Dicke's theory is still a metric theory of gravity involving curved space time, so most of the discussion of GR should be applicable to Dicke's theory. Dicke's theory should probably be included in another article. Also, the contention that Dicke didn't get a nobel because he proposed an alternative theory needs some supporting information or a citation or I think it should be removed. Again, if no one objects, I'll make the change. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I also plan, given time, to give a more "layman" style description of GR following my brief discussion on the equivalence principle. For students, diving straight into tensors, geodesics and field equations will most likely obscure the physics. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

== Einstein's Cross/Ring and Gravitational Lensing==
I think it'd useful to have a picture of gravitational lensing in the proof section. As I'm not an admin, I can't upload it. There's the picture found on wikipedia which is known as "Einstein's Cross," but there are plenty of other examples of gravitational lensing that can be found in the public domain: [http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/search.php?words=lens&x=0&y=0&method=and&format=normal&sort=score&config=picturealbum&restrict=entire_collection%2Fpr&exclude=]. I suggest picking a nice looking one and displaying it. I'm personally partial to the double ring found here: [http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire_collection/pr2008004a/]. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 20:43, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

: The images don't add anything new of substantive value. What's really needed here is more explanation about whether twice as much bending of light by relativity is really predicted and shown, compared to the prediction of bending of light by Newton's theory. Most people are misled to think that Newton's theory does not predict the bending of light, when it does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:53, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I tried to edit, read it over, reverted it as it wasn't making sense. However, I think there should be something about photons being able to move at speeds other than c in the bit about Newtonian lensing. My phrasing was really poor, thus the self-revert. I may take another crack at this later when I can get the words right.--[[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 21:22, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

::: The bending of light in Newtonian physics is not a trivial issue. The mass can approach zero and it still bends, for example. How much it bends is debatable, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:35, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Do you think it'd be a good idea to create a page about the bending of light under Newtonian Dynamics? Most people don't know about this and I think an explanation that's less technical than the linked source might help. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 15:07, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== Science And Math Facts That Prove Einstein's Blatant Error In His Relativity Theory ==
With all due respect, but with regard to truth in real science, my writing here is to provide undeniable mathematical and science fact that special relativity is false science.
For information this math proof was written on Wikipedia about two years ago and they squelched the truth in science by a vote of 8 to 1, and even though a supposed expert in relativity wrote that the math proofs did in fact prove relativity to be totally wrong, in the end he chose to live a lie and to squelch the truth.
In the end you can also squelch truth in real science by determining that truth by the undeniable science and math facts written here or to live according to truth. Either is your choice but squelching will only suppress science facts and true science. So I am going to write the science and math that shows undeniable truth and you can decide. [[User:StevenCrum|StevenCrum]] 16:31, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

:A section on "critiques of Einsteinian relativity" would be good. Do you remember the name of the expert? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:58, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

== More regarding the criticism of LIGO ==

As a student of physics, I feel myself almost obliged to add something to the discussion regarding LIGO, particularly as I work for a Professor that is part of the LIGO collaboration and have actually attended scientific conferences where the subject is addressed (though to be fair my work with her specifically deals with another one of her collaborations, Borexino).

First, as mentioned in previous discussion, it is indeed true that it was understood that LIGO, like many scientific undertakings, would need to be refined and calibrated before reaching its design sensitivity. To claim the LIGO is a failure before it has reached its design sensitivity is just as ridiculous and ignorant as criticizing any other tool or piece of equipment for not functioning before it is properly calibrated. It isn't like the LIGO collaboration is trying to pull any fast ones on anyone by being secretive about this - just do a Google search for LIGO to bring up their web page, where they discuss the details of this matter.

Secondly, it is true that the "success" of the experiment cannot be known prior to its being conducted, but if it could, what would be the point in conducting the experiment in the first place? Experimentation is a necessary aspect of science because scientific investigation fundamentally deals with the discovery of knowledge not previously known to us, and because it is not known to us, even its ultimate usefulness cannot be known a priori. The rate of observed events under the initial design sensitivity is predicted to be very low, so it would not be very surprising if we did not observe anything until advanced LIGO debuts. Even still, there is a fundamental uncertainty in the rate of events that will be seen. Maxwell was once asked what the usefulness of electromagnetism could ever be, to which he replied "What good is a newborn baby?" I do not believe I need to highlight the usefulness of electromagnetism in the modern world.

Which brings me to my third point, which is the enormous significance LIGO holds in terms of scientific potential. If LIGO is successful, it will revolutionize modern day astronomy by providing a new method for detecting cosmological phenomena. Gravitational radiation would offer another method of "imaging" the heavens, independent of electromagnetic radiation. To say that LIGO would have limited scientific benefit would be a serious rebuke to the field of astronomy in general. Optical astronomy would be coupled with gravitational astronomy as a valuable check on astronomical results attained by optical methods alone. But of course, the fundamental uncertainty we have as to what the observed rate of events will be reflects the fact that we do not know with complete certainty what cosmological objects exist, hence the very reason that LIGO would be useful.

Even more revolutionary would be if LIGO failed to detect gravitational waves. If you only assume the existence of a gravitational field, and that disturbances in that field cannot propagate faster than the speed of light, then by the very definition of wavelike phenomena, you have gravitational waves. Gravitational radiation is a prediction of General Relativity, and as such, were it to be disproved, it would falsify a prediction of a scientific theory. To say that this is not valuable would be to suggest that, for example, Michelson's experiments in search of the aether were not valuable, whereas in reality they gave supporting evidence to the idea that there is indeed no aether. At the very least, the experiment should be able to place certain restrictions on the rate of observed events. If gravitational radiation were not found, and this represented a serious contradiction with the rate of events predicted, it would be ABSOLUTELY ENORMOUS in terms of scientific relevance, and I cannot stress that enough. Something huge, somewhere in our understanding of the world, would have to be revised, be it the idea of the gravitational field, causality itself, etc. As a practicing scientist, I would almost hope that LIGO fails to see gravitational radiation, just because the scientific implications would be so unimaginably radical and weird, and force us to completely reexamine how we perceive the universe. But this subject could be argued until it reaches the realm of some very deep scientific philosophy - scientific theory is generally not viewed as being "completely true" or "completely wrong," but as a method of predicting physical phenomena, which eventually is replaced with a more accurate theory. Newtonian mechanics is not so much wrong, as it is not a good enough approximation in certain specific applications. If you want a metaphor, think about scientific progress as continuing to improve our Taylor expansion of the universe.

Though I suspect given the general tone of this article, somehow the death of GR would also please most of the contributors to this encyclopedia, as if General Relativity, a scientific theory, is somehow inherently a "liberal" idea. I'm sure that when Einstein formulated it, he envisioned it being used by Barack Obama to support a woman's legal right to terminate her pregnancy. Though, I hope for the sake of those contributors that General Relativity is either disproved, or is shown to be a "conservative" idea, because if it does adequately describe our universe, is a "liberal" idea, and God created the universe, then either God is a liberal, or he has a very weird sense of humo(u)r.

Just to get this nonsense out of the way now, I'm a registered independent. I vote, based on all of the relevant information I have been able to attain via what I believe to be credible sources, for whoever I honestly believe will be able to fulfill the duties of the office they seek, and I don't think anyone can ask any more of me than that. If any of this leads some of you to believe that I am incapable of discussing the theory of General Relativity, then I surely and sincerely have nothing but pity for you. --kfratus

: What are you talking about? The article has only one simple sentence about LIGO. Is that sentence correct or not? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:13, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

:: First, if you'll take a closer look at the talk page, you'll notice that there has been a good amount of discussion of the usefulness of LIGO, and that was what I was principally referencing. Secondly, the article in reality contains three sentences that in some way reference LIGO, albeit only one of them by name. The last sentence specifically mentions LIGO, the second sentence is clearly directly referencing LIGO without naming it, and the first claims that research involving the theory of relativity receives a disproportionate amount of funding. I would regard the first of those sentences as a matter of scientific opinion, which I addressed in my comments by pointing out how much impact LIGO could have on the entire astronomy community. The second and third sentences may not be incorrect, so much as they are worded as half truths. LIGO has been unsuccessful, or has failed, to detect graitational waves so far. To assert that LIGO has been unsuccessful in general would be entirely untrue, and is completely dependent on your notion of the "success" of the experiment, which I also addressed - LIGO has indeed managed to reach its target sensitivity, and whether or not they manage to detect gravitational waves, their results will still have a huge impact on the field of physics, which I would consider a successful experiment. --kfratus

:::Hopefully, when LIGO disproves so-called "[http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=gravity+waves gravity waves]", a relativist working on the project will be honest enough to call LIGO what it is. In this way, LIGO may end up being a very, very expensive way of '''disproving''' relativity, once and for all.
:::I doubt it, though, with all that grant money on the line. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 23:35, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: Maybe it is unfair to say that LIGO has been unsuccessful. But what about Gravity Probe B? That experiment seemed like a big expensive flop to me. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:26, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::I just want to make sure that the people here criticizing LIGO understand that the frequency range of the gravitational waves it was built to detect predict a variations in spacetime by only a factor of 10^-21. LIGO's longest vacuum tubes are 4km long. So physicists are attempting to measure a change in length approximately 1/2500th the diameter of an atomic nucleus.

:::::: Yes, that is why some people predicted that LIGO would fail. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

And to the poster who linked to youtube video of "gravity waves". Those ARE NOT gravity waves. Those are clouds.

:::::::As a passer-by stumbling upon your conversation, I never really meant to end up leaving this many posts, and I apologize if I'm violating your 90/10 rule, or anything like that. But I just wanted to clarify something that I see come up very often. I frequently run into people who have this impression that all scientists are members of some secret organization that is trying to hold knowledge from the public, and that they have their own personal reasons for trying to manipulate the body of scientific knowledge. While I cannot speak for all scientists, any of the ones that I have ever met (myself included), would be absolutely more than happy to welcome more people to our field of study. Most physicists I have met enjoy what they do, and would be very willing to pass their knowledge onto others (and one would have to admit that if we were somehow manipulating the entire body of public knowledge, we'd have to be doing a pretty good job of keeping every single scientist in the entire world quiet about the real truth - not very practical). And with respect to the comments made by BHarlan, I can assure you that most scientists would actually LOVE to disprove general relativity. In many cases, scientists are not famous because they confirm the prediction of a theory, but because they disprove one, thereby radically changing what we know about the world around us. The reason Einstein was so famous was because he disproved the Newtonian picture of the universe, not because he confirmed some prediction of it. But this is just like any other profession - think about it, if a rival of yours was successful in some way, wouldn't you be just dieing to somehow prove them wrong and rub it in their face? Scientists are people too, subject to the same personality traits as everyone else. This is why most physicists feel relatively comfortable with the scientific process - they know that if something is proposed as a theory, there will be a thousand people just itching to prove it wrong, thereby stealing the limelight for themselves. I think that if I ever found a way to disprove relativity, I'd practically have a heart attack out of excitement (and you can be sure I'd get a Nobel prize for it, too). In fact, it is already a well known fact that GR must be wrong at at least some level, because as it is formulated now, it's not compatible with some of the basic tenets of quantum mechanics. Though, I'm still pretty sure we'll see gravity waves, if you want my opinion. Gravity waves are predicted by ideas much more fundamental than GR (aka, the finite speed of light), and so GR could be be wrong, and we could still have gravity waves - as long as you define the propagating influence of gravity as a "wave," and assume that information can't travel faster than the speed of light, then there you have it, really. And with respect to the video of the clouds, those are actually "gravity waves," but of a different sort. The term comes from how the Earth's gravitational field effects atmospheric conditions. So it is the same term for two very different things, which unfortunately may lead to some confusion for some people. And with respect to Gravity Probe B, I admit that I do not know as much about that experiment, and off the top of my head would not really be able to debate it. Though if I remember correctly its data analysis is scheduled to continue into 2010, so I would hesitate to say anything until then (other than the fact that in principle, I find its goals fairly relevant - if you really wanted to test the geometrical nature of GR, you should try to confirm/disprove one of its craziest, most non-intuitive predictions - aka, frame-dragging).

:::::::But I can assure you, I have met plenty of people who are very politically conservative, and believe in gravity waves. In fact, many deeply spiritual people believe that relativity is a sign of God's existence. The basic idea goes that if relativity were not true, there would have to be some preferred reference frame, which would have to be chosen somewhat arbitrarily. But how could a divine creator just make some arbitrary choice like that? Not very elegant, if you ask me. In fact, I have heard that some people actually cry when they finally understand GR, because of what an elegant theory it is. If you want to read more about ideas like that, I definitely suggest Brian Greene's book, "Fabric of the Cosmos." If you want my honest opinion, I have yet to come across anything in my study of physics that I believe is a serious threat to the existence of some intelligent creator. From what I can gather, most physicists don't even concern themselves with such an aim - if God exists, then he exists. Our goal is to study what we can see, and make useful predictions based on that. If it's all just a result of God, then so be it. The only result will be that we've come to know Him a little better through out study of the universe and its workings. --kfratus

:::::::: The article hardly says anything about gravity waves. Are you suggesting some change to the article? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:00, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

== General Questions ==

The article suggests that Newtonian physics somehow suggest the bending of light, which is impossible according to Newtonian physics. Since a photon has zero mass, it cannot be bent by the force as described by Newton.

* Huh? I thought it was Newton who '''discovered''' the bending of light, which occurs as light enters a [[prism]]. It is because the various frequencies of light bend by different amounts that we get the [[rainbox]] effect (see [[spectrum]]). Or I have I totally forgotten my [[high-school physics]] and [[history of science]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Next point, Newton's action-at-a-distance theory of gravity seems to be taken as fact. The idea that general relativity violates this is used as a point against it. Newton himself stated, and I quote:

"It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the
mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and
affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must do, if gravitation,
...., be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason, why I
desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should
be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act
upon another, at a distance through vacuum, without the mediation of
anything else, by and through their action and force may be conveyed
from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no
man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking,
can ever fall into it."

Therefor, even the founder of classical mechanics saw action-at-a-distance as problem, so how is it in any way evidence to contradict a well tested theory?

: Oh, ignoring phenomena such as quantum entanglement, are we? --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 22:57, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
:: Actually, no. The reason that a grand unified theory is necessary is because of the discrepancies of the quantum world and the macro world. Both have been tested, neither conclusively, but evidence is in their favor. All I am saying here is that you can't use this (logically) as a point to disqualify an entire theory. Especially when you use this point when referencing a person (Newton) who had a problem with it.

::: Kindly use the signature button (10th from the left above) to "sign" your comments, so we can tell who's saying what.

::: Newton assumed nothing; he "feigned no hypotheses." Accordingly, he didn't have "a problem with it." It was his peers who could not accept it. Newton's quote above does not question "action at a distance," but is commenting on the nature of matter.

::: Many still refuse to accept action at a distance (and non-locality), as your own viewpoints demonstrate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
:::: Still refuse? As one of your relatives pointed out, there is some support for it, such as quantum entanglement, but on a large scale (say larger than the what is it now, 1 km?) past where quantum entanglement has been proven, there is no proof or any proof to suggest it should be true. And, I'm sorry, but I have to say. Don't assign my viewpoints to me sir. I will decide what I think based on fact. What I form as opinion, I will state as such. I don't understand how people can read this article with any knowledge of physics and agree with it. None of my professors, mentors, or scientists that I have met would support such statements. The fact that you are doing so proves the disgusting and twisted lengths that some people will go to in order to make established fact comply with their own super-conservative beliefs. It is people like yourselves that are ruining the republican party and make me scared for the future of America.--[[User:RobertSJ|RobertSJ]] 23:22, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

::::: So even though non-locality and action at a distance have been fully proven in laboratory experiments, you claim "there is no proof or any proof to suggest it should be true" ''beyond a certain distance''. Surely you don't think there is one set of laws for less than an arbitrary distance, and another set of laws for larger than an arbitrary distance. No, the real problem here is that some people, perhaps including yourself, do not and will not accept action at a distance regardless of the proof.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Next point, several "obscure physicists" is not the same as almost the entire community of physicists (which is the actual truth here.) Gravitational redshift perfectly explains the way that signals between earth and GPS satellites are different in time. That is how current GPS positions are calculated.

You mention LIGO at the very end and gravity waves as well. There is no prior mention. The prior mentions should explain what gravity waves are, why they are so weak, why they can probably only be detected from very massive binary systems, and why even when these massive binary systems are found the radiation should be so weak that the immense precision of LIGO and LISA are required.

Just some points on things that are not accurate or need to be clarified in order to not leave the reader with a false interpretation of scientific fact.

:Also edit, I am a physics major attending a well-respected and also conservative school (Vanderbilt). I have conducted research in physics at a national lab (ORNL), and like to keep up on this kind of thing. I am a moderate but conservative leaning voter.--[[User:RobertSJ|RobertSJ]] 23:22, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I responded in greater detail above, but let me just add that not everything you've learned is true, and not everything your professors state is true either. Hopefully you'll admit at least that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

: Photons have zero rest mass, but they are not at rest. A reference is given for the deflection of light as predicted by relativity theory. So the article seems to be correct about the bending of light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:41, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

::I wish that critics of CP would help us write [[basic physics]] articles instead of trying to "prove us wrong". Please help me finish the "[[bending of light]]" article, in accordance with what we all agree about Newton's discoveries many decades ago. Then we can discuss how to present [[quantum physics]], okay? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:04, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

== Non-Locality and Quantum Field Theory ==

There is no action at a distance, nor non-locality, in quantum mechanics nor field theory. None. You're confusing two different subjects.

First, action at a distance: True, in Newton's gravity, there is action at a distance. But this is totally different from anything to be found in QM or field theory, which have no action at a distance. All Hamiltonians in the standard models of field theory (QED, electroweak, QCD) are strictly local Hamiltonians. Forces are exerted by passing virtual bosons back and forth in space, like footballs. Interactions (like electron/photon, then photon/electron) are all 100% local.

The fact that Newton's theory assumed action at a distance (without proof) does not mean that ALL theories require action at a distance. Why should that follow? Why should modern theories be limited by Newton's unproved assumptions? Quantum field theory is immensely more accurate, measured objectively, than Newton's gravity force ever was. QED (with special relativity built in) predicted the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron accurate to one part in a TRILLION. Newton's theory was never even close to that level of accuracy! Newton could never accurately compute the orbit of Mercury or gravitational lensing to one part in a trillion! Or billion. By objective criteria, field theory is more accurate than Newton.

Second, non-locality: non-locality is not the same as action at a distance. Action at a distance requires exertion of a FORCE. Nothing in QM is in fact non-local. The only thing non-local about QM is the Copenhagen interpretation of wavefunction collapse, which is not a part of the equations, but a way of visualizing the effect of observation a QM system.

You have mentioned quantum entanglement as a supposed example of non-locality. Entanglement, and phenomena like quantum teleportation, do not exert FORCES, so they are not actiona at a distance! Further, quantum entanglement can never be used to transmit information faster than the speed of light. Hence, there's no contradiction between QM and SR. Field theory has SR built in. There is no experiment, in quantum teleportation nor EPR paradox, Bell's inequality etc., that can possibly transmit information FTL. Describe one experiment, just one entanglement experiment, that can supposedly transmit info FTL. I dare you. Just one.

So what is this supposed "non-locality" then? The Copenhagen interpretation of QM says that the wavefunction should "collapse" (revert to a single eigenfunction) everywhere simultaneously when an observation is made. If this really happened, it would be a problem for SR, because in SR, simultaneity is relative to the observer. But, two problems. First, this supposed "collapse" can never be observed and can never be used to transmit info FTL. Second, the Copenhagen interpretation is deeply flawed because it never defined what an "observation" was. It is no longer the most popular interpretation; among physicists, the Many Worlds interpretation is more popular now, because it precisely defines what observation means, in terms of quantum decoherence, so MWI connects better to macroscopic thermodynamics.

If you want to (groan) argue the point, you can argue that Copenhagen and Many Worlds are both non-local, but so what? They're visualizations, not equations, and certainly not forces, nor "actions"!! When neither visualization scheme can be used to transmit info FTL, nor exert a force, this is no problem for SR at all!

The only big problem here is that field theory is incompatible with GR, not SR. True. Everybody knows this is the biggest problem in physics. No one knows whether the flaw is in GR, field theory, or both. However, either way, there is no problem between field theory and SR. Field theory has SR built in, and is (objectively measured) the most precise scientific theory in history. If you argue this, I'll swamp you with experimental proofs. [[User:Cuddlytakun|Cuddlytakun]] 15:53, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

:"Cuddlytakun", you've obviously made up your mind that [[action at a distance]] and [[non-locality]] must not exist. But all evidence is against your view. Would you support spending another billion dollars of taxpayer money looking for [[gravitons]] to support your view? I hope not.

:How about this: raise ''private'' capital for searching for gravitons to support your philosophy. Then we'll see how many really agree with you, rather than just going along for the ride.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:10, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

Au contrere mon frere, you made up your mind that action at a distance is the only type force possible. I have nowhere said action at a distance is impossible. I've said Newton never proved, could not prove, it was the ONLY possibility. I suppose it's possible for both to exist. In field theory this would mean a Hamiltonian that is part local and part non-local. Sometimes the idea is kicked around. Mathematically, non-local Hamiltonians are a pain in the ass to compute with, and counterintuitive, but theoretically possible.

Why have you decided that action at a distance is the only possibility? Just because Newton's theory assumed it without proof, this does not mean all forces in nature must likewise be action at a distance. Think about this: suppose you and I are ice-skating. I toss you a football. When I throw the ball, reaction force pushes me backward. When you catch it, the collision pushes you away from me. Basic repulsive force at a distance, composed of local pairwise interactions. All forces in the standard model (electrodynamic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear; that is electroweak and QCD) work that way. The footballs are virtual bosons of spin 1.

"All evidence is against your view"? What evidence? What are you talking about!? "Your view"? Hell of a dismissive thing to say. It's not "my view", it's the view of everybody in physics, including Weinberg and Wilczek. Do you even know the meaning of the quotes you lifted out of Wilczek and Weinberg's speeches!? Seriously, do you have any evidence in mind, any at all, or are you just blowing smoke?

So you drag funding issues into it. As you know, the Europeans paid for the Large Hadron Collider so all the geniuses are moving to Europe. The last smart person to leave America, please turn out the lights.

But don't dismiss field theory as "philosophy". You're playing word games because you can't back up your statements with facts. These are facts: with field theory, you can predict the experimental value of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron to one part in a trillion. Of the muon, to one part in a billion. You can compute the mass of protons and neutrons and mesons from first principles, a priori! Which is an inherently relativistic computation (m = E/c2, with E from local QCD.) The Z boson's existence and mass were predicted before its discovery via electroweak theory, which is an entirely local Hamiltonian. Newton's gravity could never compute anything to an accuracy of one part in a billion, or compute masses of particles a priori, or predict new particles before they're observed! Why do you call field theory philosophy, but Newton's theory is science? Explain the definition of "philosophy" you're using here. Word games!
[[User:Cuddlytakun|Cuddlytakun]] 23:55, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

: Your "word-to-substance ratio" is very high; you are likely a [[liberal]]. See point 2 in [[liberal style]].

:I beg you to open your mind and learn here, for your own sake. Look at how you refused to address my simple point. Instead you cling to your perception of what you think others believe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

== Proof ==

The proofs for relativity are both mathematical and physical, yet this article tries to say otherwise. If someone doesn't know them then can I please put them in without them being edited out within minutes?

--[[User:Unlikelyconvert|Unlikelyconvert]] 13:14, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

: You're not going to push anything that is false here. Make your very best edit first and let's see how that looks, before you spend a lot of time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:20, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

I haven't tried to push anything, I've made a few edits already, corrected a couple of scientific mistakes, and said this. Can you please open your mind for just 10 minutes and look at both sides of this debate? Look at the overwhelming consensus on relativity, and then I will look at any source you give me forwarding your viewpoint. As I've said in another talk page, I am willing to change my views if you can prove them.
--[[User:Unlikelyconvert|Unlikelyconvert]] 13:27, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

: My mind is open, and I've invited you to make your very best edit first. Or, alternatively, state it here. Keep your word-to-substance ratio low, however. See [[liberal style]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:30, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Looking above, many people have stated the mathematical proofs in their different forms, yet you dismissed most of them almost out of hand. And I am not a liberal in respect to your definition, I am the (in my experience) the more common kind, the kind who will accept evidence. And you don't seem that open minded, as when i offered to put in proofs you started by saying I was trying to spread falsehoods. Proof makes something true, not false.

--[[User:Unlikelyconvert|Unlikelyconvert]] 13:34, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

: I'm going to move on to more substantive edits. Your word-to-substance ratio has been very high.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

::I'm going to ban uc if he doesn't stop trying to make people change their minds. If he wants to provide information about a novel, unproven or untested theory he's welcome to do that. He can even write about a theory which we conservatives know is false, provided that he doesn't try to present it as '''valid'''.

::Our policy is to label advocacy as such. Say, for example, that Professor X asserts theory Y because of Z. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:22, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Theory of relativity

2009-05-26T17:35:35Z

Lemonpeel: /* Mass increase */

'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related theories in [[physics]], and to [[postulate]]s that led to the first [[theory]]. Special relativity (SR) is a theory which describes the laws of motion for non-accelerating bodies traveling at a significant fraction of the [[speed of light]]. As speeds approach zero, Special Relativity tends towards equivalence with [[Newton's Laws of Motion]]. Special Relativity was developed by [[Hendrik Lorentz]], [[Henri Poincaré]], Hermann Minkowski,<ref>"German mathematician who developed the geometrical theory of numbers and who made numerous contributions to number theory, mathematical physics, and the theory of relativity." [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9052860/Hermann-Minkowski Hermann Minkowski -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia]</ref><ref>[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Minkowski.html Hermann Minkowski, Biography]</ref> and [[Albert Einstein]].

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

'''Relativity''' is a mathematical system built on untestable hypotheses. By relying on ''assumptions'' about nature rather than ''observations'', the theories of relativity violate [[Isaac Newton]]'s rule against the use of hypotheses: "Hypotheses non fingo" ("I feign no hypotheses)".<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/</ref> Relativity also rejects -- without any experimental evidence -- Newton's [[action at a distance]], which is basic to Newtonian gravity and [[quantum mechanics]].

The [[non-locality]] of [[quantum mechanics]] and [[Newton]]ian physics contradicts the theories of relativity, which assume that time is an intrinsic part of space and assumes absolute locality. Causality breaks down under relativity if information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light. In addition, the [[uncertainty principle]] suggests that light [[photons]] must sometimes travel faster than the speed of light despite the assumption of relativity; "[t]he only known way to resolve this tension involves introducing the idea of antiparticles."<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2004/wilczek-lecture.pdf (p. 102)</ref> Quantum field theory is another attempt to partially reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics. But "quantum field theory, which was born just fifty years ago from the marriage of quantum mechanics with relativity, is a beautiful but not very robust child."<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1979/weinberg-lecture.pdf (p. 556)</ref>

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

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

In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
# It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.<ref>This assumption is commonly restated in this manner. For example, a discussion of hypothetical [[tachyons]] talks "about using tachyons to transmit information faster than the speed of light, '''in violation of Special Relativity'''."[http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html] However, there is some question whether the Theory of Special Relativity really restricts faster-than-light communication of information.</ref>
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

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

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

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

== General Relativity ==

General Relativity is a theory of gravity that is compatible with Special Relativity. The theory was inspired by a thought experiment developed by Einstein involving two elevators. The first elevator is stationary on the Earth, while the other is being pulled through space at a constant acceleration of g. Einstein realized that any physical experiment carried out in the elevators would give the same result. This realization is known as the equivalence principle and it states that accelerating frames of reference and gravitational fields are indistinguishable. General Relativity is the theory of gravity that incorporates Special Relativity and the equivalence principle.

General Relativity is a mathematical extension of Special Relativity. GR views space-time as a 4-dimensional [[manifold]], which looks locally like [[Minkowski space]], and which acquires [[curvature]] due to the presence of massive bodies. Thus, near massive bodies, the geometry of space-time differs to a large degree from [[Euclidean geometry]]: for example, the sum of the angles in a triangle is not exactly 180 degrees. Just as in classical physics, objects travel along [[geodesic]]s in the absence of external forces. Importantly though, near a massive body, geodesics are no longer straight lines. It is this phenomenon of objects traveling along geodesics in a curved spacetime that accounts for gravity.

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

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

British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Briton Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 with a local Army unit to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. Upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. In fact recent analysis of Eddington's work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data were inconclusive about the theory of relativity. The prediction was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] <ref>[http://www.spaceimages.com/gravlen.html Hubble Gravitational Lens Photo]</ref><ref> [http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/galaxies/lensing.html Gravitational Lensing] </ref><ref>[http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html]</ref>. Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.

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

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

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

==Consequences of the Theories==

===Time dilation===

[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]
One important consequence of SR's postulates is that an observer in one reference frame will observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" more slowly than in the observer's own frame. This can be proven mathematically using basic geometry, if the postulates are physically true without exception.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:

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

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

====Time Dilation and Creation Science====

{{main|Starlight problem}}

Prevailing theories among creation scientists such as physicists Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] and Dr. [[John Hartnett]] are time dilation explains why the earth is only 6,000 years old even though cosmological data (background radiation, supernovae, etc.) set a much older age for the universe.

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

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

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

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

===Mass increase===

For decades the theory of relativity taught that as a body moves with increasing velocity its [[mass]] also increases.<ref>For example, this was taught as recently as in the 1991 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.</ref>

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

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

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

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

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. In recent years most physicists have shifted away from Einstein's original reliance on relativistic mass and his suggestion that mass increases. Instead, most physicists today teach that

:<math>F=\frac{d}{d\tau} p</math>

where <math>p</math> is the momentum defined by <math>\gamma m v</math>, <math>\gamma</math> is the standard Lorentz factor, and <math>\tau</math> is the proper time. Force F defined this way is a vector and thus can handle the directional aspect of the relativistic effects better than the concept of relativistic mass can.

Ultimately, the concept of relativistic mass should be viewed as a language for interpreting the equations of relativity that has since become less popular. Relativistic mass <math>m</math> was defined in such a way that the equation <math>E=mc^2</math> became true in all inertial reference frames. One can rephrase this equation as saying the following: If <math>p</math> is the 4-momentum of a particle, then the square of the magnitude of <math>p</math> satisfies:

<math>||p||^2 = -p_x^2-p_y^2-p_z^2+E^2 = m_0^2c^4</math>

in any inertial reference frame. In other words, the magnitude of the 4-momentum, in any inertial frame, equals the rest mass <math>m_0</math> of the particle (in units where <math>c=1</math>). While this is equivalent to the statement <math>E=mc^2</math>, where <math>m</math> equals relativistic mass, the latter statement in terms of the 4-momentum is more natural from the point of view of Minkowski geometry.

==Evidence for Relativity==

Claims that relativity were used to develop the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) are false. A 1996 article explains:

:"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 - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: 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."<ref>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf</ref><ref>Some do claim that relativity is "vital" to GPS even though GPS developed independently of theoretical predictions and theoreticians disagree about how the relativistic effects for GPS should be calculated. ''See id. See also'' [http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR614/MR614.appb.pdf]</ref>

This article, which was published in 1996, goes on to propose relativistic corrections that might be used to design more accurate GPS systems. Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth.

Tom Van Flandern, an astronomer hired to work on GPS in the late 1990s, concluded that "[t]he GPS programmers don't need relativity." He was quoted as saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein."<ref>http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html See also [http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP], where Van Flandern discusses how relativistic corrections might improve GPS accuracy.</ref> Asynchronization can be easily addressed through communications between the satellites and ground stations, so it is unclear why any theory would be needed for GPS. But other obscure physicists having no connection with GPS design claim that Van Flandern is wrong about GPS, and insist that relativity provides the best explanation for its timing adjustments.<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>

Some internet articles claim that GPS timing differences ''confirm'' the Theory of Relativity or its Lorentzian counterpart (which uses a preferred frame of reference). GPS clocks run slower in the weaker gravitation field of the satellites than on ground stations on Earth, with the effects predicted by general relativity far outweighing the effects predicted by special relativity. However, the articles claiming that the slower GPS satellite clocks confirm relativity do not address the effect, if any, of the weaker gravitational force under Newton's theory on the GPS satellite clocks.

[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|signal dipping into a gravity well around the [[sun]]]]
There are claims that the effects of relativity have been observed with the frequency shift of the signal being sent back to [[Earth]] several times as various spacecraft have dipped into the gravity wells around massive objects such as the [[sun]] (see image at right)<ref>[http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm Saturn-Bound Spacecraft Tests Einstein's Theory]</ref> or Saturn<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html Encounter with Saturn confirms relativity theory]</ref>. A satellite called [[Gravity Probe B]] was put in orbit about the Earth to examine the effects of frame dragging and geodetic warping of space<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html NASA Gravity Probe B mission page]</ref><ref>[http://einstein.stanford.edu/ Gravity Probe B project page]</ref>, but the results were inconclusive. Note, however, that Newtonian mechanics also predicts deflection of light by gravity, and in the initial theory of relativity it predicted the same amount of deflection.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> Adjustments to the theory of relativity resulted in a prediction of a greater deflection of light than that predicated by Newtonian mechanics, though it is debatable how much deflection Newtonian mechanics should predict.

None of the NASA spacecraft incorporates predictions of relativity into their own timing mechanisms, as Newtonian mechanics is adequate even for probes sent deep into space.<ref>There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe.</ref>

A decade of observation of the [[pulsar]] pair [[PSR 1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] detected a decline in its orbital period, which was attributed to a loss in energy by the system. It is impossible to measure the masses of the pulsars, their accelerations relative to the observers, or other fundamental parameters. Professors Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, who discovered the binary pulsar, found that physical values could be assigned to the pulsars to make the observed decline in orbital period consistent with the Theory of General Relativity, and for this they were awarded the 1993 [[Nobel Prize]] for Physics, which is the only award ever given by the Nobel committee for the Theory of Relativity.<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html</ref> In 2004, Professor Taylor utilized a correction to the derivative of the orbital period to fit subsequent data better to the theory. At most, assumptions can be made and altered to fit the data to the theory, rather than the data confirming the theory.

The [[perihelion]] of Mercury's [[orbit]] [[precession|precesses]] at a measurable rate, but even after after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets in the [[solar system]], Newton's theory (assuming a precise inverse-square relationship for distance) predicts a rate of precession that differs from the measured rate by approximately 43 [[arcsecond]]s per century. General relativity was developed in part to provide an estimate for this rate of precession that better matches observations.<ref>http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000</ref> <ref> http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf</ref> <ref> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node117.html</ref> Newton's theory can also explain this perihelion by factoring in the gravitational pull due to other planets or making tiny adjustments to parameters in the gravitational equation.

General relativity predicts twice as much bending in light as it passes near massive objects than Newton's theory might predict.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> This phenomenon is known as [[gravitational lens|gravitational lensing]]. A large number of instances of gravitational lensing have been observed, and it is now a standard astronomical tool.<ref> http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/grav_lens.html</ref> <ref> http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html</ref> <ref> http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html</ref> Note, however, that the extent of bending of light predicted by Newton's theory is open to debate, and depends on assumptions about the nature of light for gravitational purposes.<ref>http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/1919/guide/gravity_bends_starlight.html</ref>

In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and claimed to observe the relativistic "twin paradox" the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy <ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment Hafele-Keating Experiment]</ref><ref>As described in [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?], a personal web page, which cites Haefele and Keating (1972), ''Science'' Vol. 177 pp 166-170 as its source</ref><ref>Sullivan, Walter (1972), "Relativity Theory Awaits Affirmation," September 23, 1972, p. 61. Note: Article refers to a different experiment, which Sullivan discusses, saying that if successful it would be "the second time within a year" that relativity had been confirmed, then proceeds to discuss Hafele[sic] and Keating's experiment as the first.</ref> But the Nobel Committee chose not to honor this experiment for the significance that was claimed.

== Ostensible Paradoxes ==

The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like the speed of light have remained constant. But at least one study suggests that physical constants, and possibly even the speed of light, have changed as the universe has aged.<ref>James Glanz and Dennis Overbye, "Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a Study Finds," August 15, 2001.[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/science/15PHYS.html?ex=1185076800&en=d6467b6e3e346796&ei=5070]</ref>

"For the first time, scientists have experimentally demonstrated that sound pulses can travel at velocities faster than the speed of light, c. William Robertson's team from Middle Tennessee State University also showed that the group velocity of sound waves can become infinite, and even negative. ... Although such results may at first appear to violate special relativity (Einstein's law that no material object can exceed the speed of light), the actual significance of these experiments is a little different. These types of superluminal phenomena, Robertson et al. explain, violate neither causality nor special relativity, nor do they enable information to travel faster than c. In fact, theoretical work had predicted that the superluminal speed of the group velocity of sound waves should exist. 'The key to understanding this seeming paradox is that no wave energy exceeded the speed of light,' said Robertson."<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html</ref>

"A team of researchers from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has successfully demonstrated, for the first time, that it is possible to control the speed of light – both slowing it down and speeding it up – in an optical fiber, using off-the-shelf instrumentation in normal environmental conditions. Their results, to be published in the August 22 issue of Applied Physics Letters, could have implications that range from optical [[computing]] to the fiber-optic telecommunications industry."<ref>http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html</ref> Both slowing down and speeding up of light within a substance other than a vacuum is made possible, because the light travels through the material, and that material affects the speed of light, i.e. a photon hits an electron, which then exits and emits a slightly lower energy photon out in the direction that the original photon was traveling, thus maintaining conservation of momentum. No matter how transparent an object may appear, it radically impacts the speed of the light traveling through it, as demonstrated by the refractive production of a rainbow by a crystal, which Newton himself discovered.

"A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time. ... Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: 'For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of.'"<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml</ref>

==Pending research==

Today some physicists are working on hypothesizing how general relativity might have related to the other three forces of nature during the first fraction of a second of the [[Big Bang]]. Two of the more commonly studied attempts are [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]], but they have failed to produce any evidence that science mandates a science must have, and both typically take large amounts of work to even conform to what scientists believe. Critics increasingly point out that string theory and loop quantum gravity are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by [[Karl Popper]].<ref>See, for example, ''Not Even Wrong'', by Peter Woit</ref>

Relativity continues to be tested and some physics professors remain skeptical of the theory, such as University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who served as the principle physicist on the Apollo lunar project.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm</ref>

== Political aspects of relativity ==

Some [[liberal]] politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, [[Democratic]] presidential candidate [[Barack Obama]] helped publish an article by liberal law professor [[Laurence Tribe]] to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to [[abortion]].<ref>Tribe and Obama argued that the [[Constitution]] should be interpreted to establish a right to federally funded [[abortion]] and that, more generally, ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' does not go far enough. They insisted that a relativistic "curvature of space" could achieve this result by expanding application of the [[Constitution]] based on its impact on personal choice. "The ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' opinion ignored the way in which laws regulating pregnant women may shape the entire pattern of relationships among men, women, and children. It conceptualized abortion not in terms of the intensely public question of the subordination of women to men through the exploitation of pregnancy, but in terms of the purportedly private question of how women might make intimately personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. That vision described a part of the truth, but only what might be called the Newtonian part. ... [A] change in the surrounding legal setting can constitute state action that most threatens the sphere of personal choice. And it is a 'curved space' perspective on how law operates that leads one to focus less on the visible lines of legal force and more on how those lines are bent and directed by the law's geometry." Laurence H. Tribe, The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 16-17 (1989).</ref> As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited this [[liberal]] application of the theory of relativity to legal arguments.<ref>Search conducted by [[User:Aschlafly]] in the LEXIS database "US Law Reviews and Journals, Combined," conducted June 1, 2008.</ref> Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common.<ref>"Mistakenly, in the minds of many, the theory of relativity became relativism."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38081]</ref> Moreover, there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.<ref>Although the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|liberally biased Wikipedia]] contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like ''The Economist'' recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Relativity Theory of Relativity] omits one word of criticism.</ref>

Physicist [[Robert Dicke]] of Princeton University was a prominent critic<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref> of general relativity, and Dicke's alternative "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."<ref>"Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_bekenstein.html] </ref> Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was never awarded a Nobel Prize.

There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity.

===Government Support for Relativistic research===
The Theory of Relativity enjoys a disproportionate share of [[federal funding]] of physics research today.<ref>The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project despite substantial criticism by scientists that it was wasting scarce research dollars. John Travis, "LIGO: a $ 250 million gamble; Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory; includes related article," ''Science'' p. 612 (Apr. 30, 1993). "Adding to the acrimony is LIGO's $ 250 million price tag, which some hold responsible for NSF's recent funding woes." ''Id.''</ref> In at least one case that research has been unsuccessful. The $365 million dollar LIGO project has failed to detect the gravity waves predicted by relativity.<ref>http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html</ref>

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

[[Category:Physics]]

==External Links ==
*[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com Relativity Calculator - Learn Special Relativity Mathematics ] The mathematics of special relativity presented in as simple and comprehensive manner possible within philosophical and historical contexts.

Natural logarithm

2009-05-26T00:57:36Z

Lemonpeel:

[[Image:log.png|thumb|right|px=200|red: natural logarithm]]
The natural logarithm, <math>\ln(x)</math> is the inverse of the function <math>e^x</math>. In other words, if <math>y = e^x</math>, we define <math>\ln(y) = x</math>.

The natural logarithm has some interesting properties that follow from the multiplicative properties of <math>e^x</math>. The natural logarithm is also particularly useful in calculating [[interest]].

== Properties of the Logarithm ==

*<math>\ln(ab) = \ln(a)+\ln(b)</math> for all positive reals <math>a,b</math>.

Proof: If <math>a,b > 0</math>, we can write <math>a = e^x</math> and <math>b= e^y</math>. It follows that <math>\ln(ab) = \ln(e^x e^y) = \ln(e^{x+y})</math>. By definition, <math>\ln(e^{x+y}) = x+y = \ln(e^x)+\ln(e^y)</math>. This last expression, of course, is <math>\ln(a)+\ln(b)</math>.

*<math>\ln(x^p) = p\ln(x)</math>

Proof: If <math>p</math> is a positive integer, this just follows from repeated application of the above-mentioned additive property of the logarithm. For <math>p = \frac{1}{n}</math>, note that the statement follows by observing that <math>\ln(x) = \ln((x^{1/n})^n) = n\ln(x^{1/n})</math>. Thus, <math>p\ln(x) = \ln(x^p)</math> for all rational numbers <math>p</math>. The statement must therefore hold for all reals <math>p</math> by continuity.

*<math>\ln(1) = 0</math>

Proof: <math>\ln(1) = \ln(1\cdot 1) = \ln(1)+\ln(1)</math>, whence we must have <math>\ln(1)=0</math>.
[[Category:Mathematics]]

Natural logarithm

2009-05-26T00:56:35Z

Lemonpeel:

[[Image:log.png|thumb|right|px=200|red: natural logarithm]]
The natural logarithm, <math>\ln(x)</math> is the inverse of the function <math>e^x</math>. In other words, if <math>y = e^x</math>, we define <math>\ln(y) = x</math>.

The natural logarithm has some interesting properties that follow from the multiplicative properties of <math>e^x</math>. The natural logarithm is also particularly useful in calculating [[interest]].

== Properties of the Logarithm ==

*<math>\ln(ab) = \ln(a)+\ln(b)</math> for all positive reals <math>a,b</math>.

Proof: If <math>a,b > 0</math>, we can write <math>a = e^x</math> and <math>b= e^y</math>. It follows that <math>\ln(ab) = \ln(e^x e^y) = \ln(e^{x+y})</math>. By definition, <math>\ln(e^{x+y}) = x+y = \ln(e^x)+\ln(e^y)</math>. This last expression, of course, is <math>\ln(a)+\ln(b)</math>.

*<math>\ln(x^p) = p\ln(x)</math>

Proof: If <math>p</math> is a positive integer, this just follows from repeated application of the above-mentioned additive property of the logarithm. For <math>p = \frac{1}{n}</math>, note that the statement follows by observing that <math>\ln(x) = \ln((x^{1/n})^n) = n\ln(x^{1/n}</math>. Thus, <math>p\ln(x) = \ln(x^p)</math> for all rational numbers <math>p</math>. The statement must therefore hold for all reals <math>p</math> by continuity.

*<math>\ln(1) = 0</math>

Proof: <math>\ln(1) = \ln(1\cdot 1) = \ln(1)+\ln(1)</math>, whence we must have <math>\ln(1)=0</math>.
[[Category:Mathematics]]

Natural logarithm

2009-05-26T00:55:50Z

Lemonpeel:

[[Image:log.png|thumb|right|px=200|red: natural logarithm]]
The natural logarithm, <math>\ln(x)</math> is the inverse of the function <math>e^x</math>. In other words, if <math>y = e^x</math>, we define <math>\ln(y) = x</math>.

The natural logarithm has some interesting properties that follow from the multiplicative properties of <math>e^x</math>. The natural logarithm is also particularly useful in calculating [[interest]].

== Properties of the Logarithm ==

*<math>\ln(ab) = \ln(a)+\ln(b)</math> for all positive reals <math>a,b</math>.

Proof: If <math>a,b > 0</math>, we can write <math>a = e^x</math> and <math>b= e^y</math>. It follows that <math>\ln(ab) = \ln(e^x e^y) = \ln(e^{x+y})</math>. By definition, <math>\ln(e^{x+y}) = x+y = \ln(e^x)+\ln(e^y)</math>. This last expression, of course, is <math>\ln(a)+\ln(b)</math>.

*<math>\ln(x^p) = p\ln(x)</math>

Proof: If <math>p</math> is a positive integer, this just follows from repeated application of the above-mentioned additive property of the logarithm. For <math>p = \frac{1}{n}</math>, note that the statement follows by observing that <math>\ln(x) = \ln((x^{1/n})^n) = n\ln(x^{1/n}</math>. Thus, <math>p\ln(x) = \ln(x^p)</math> for all rational numbers <math>p</math>. The statement must therefore hold for all reals <math>p</math> by continuity.

*<math>\ln(1) = 0</math>

Proof: <math>\ln(1) = \ln(1\cdot 1) = \ln(1)+\ln(1)</math>, whence we must have <math>\ln(1)=0</math>.
[[Category:Mathematics]]

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-05-26T00:41:17Z

Lemonpeel:

== Mass Increase Section ==

In the subsection on mass increase, it is claimed that the abandonment of the relativistic mass point of view "undermines" the famous equation <math>E=mc^2</math>. I find this statement rather odd. After all, the broader principle underlying this equation is that if <math>p</math> is the 4-momentum vector of a particle, then the magnitude of <math>p</math> is the same in all inertial reference frames and equal (in units where c = 1) to the rest mass of the particle. This remains true regardless of whether one uses the language of relativistic mass or not. As currently written, this subsection is liable to confuse anyone who is unfamiliar with the subject.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 20:41, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

== Great article ==

1) Superb avoidance of difficult science in a scientific article. Best not to be confusing.
2) Nice attention on Eddington rather than the theory itself.
3) Good mind reading regarding Eddington's dreams.
4) Nice work ignoring the facts about things that have been inventing using GR such as GPS

And rather than simply be sarcastic, I will work on a better article over the weekend. One that actually discusses the science.

== Special and general relativity ==

This article seems to combine the two. They are different ideas and need to be distinguished. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:21, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Agreed. Separate articles would make more sense. I don't have time to do the necessary work right now, but if no one else does it I'm sure I'll get to it eventually. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:11, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:If someone will split the pages, I'll help flesh them out.--[[User:ZLewis|ZLewis]] 10:42, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Moral Relativism line needs to go. ==

I have never heard anyone advocating moral relativism use either of the theories of relativity to do it. Actually, the only people who I've ever heard that from are relativity deniers like Fred Hutchison. Not only does that show a grave misunderstanding of the scientific theory, but also a misunderstanding of the phrase "moral relativism". In any case, you can't draw moral implications from scientific theories. When someone says that Einstein's theory of relativity implies some kind of moral relativism, they're really saying "The geometric theory of gravity allows me to internalize my moral decisions".

That line is ridiculous and irrelevant, and needs to disappear.

:I don't like it ''at all'' in its present form, but the word "relativity" is thrown around casually ''quite a lot'' and there might be justification for a section with a title like "what relativity is not."

:E.g. [http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/06/relativity.html Scott Adams], author of the Dilbert comic strip, says "Einstein’s great insight was assuming reality was not fixed, and that everything was relative to the observer" and goes on to say "I have extended that thinking to people..."

::I think using Scott Adams as a reference or a jumping-off point for discussion really constitutes holding one's self to a dismally low standard. He's posted his own theories of physics to his blog a few times, freely admitting that he knows they're wrong and that he just takes pride in the fact that the layman can't successfully challenge them. In all honesty, moral relativism is a perfectly valid subject for an article, but it doesn't have anything to do with physics other than an unfortunate overlap of words and definitions in English. Putting this section in just makes the authors look like they're bristling for a fight. [[User:Willforpresident|Willforpresident]] 21:25, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:What follows is interesting if not very profound, but dragging Einstein into it is not helpful.

:It just goes to show the value of jargon. When scientists give something a simple name like "relativity," people assume they understand it and misapply it. I'm just thankful that people aren't very familiar with mathematics or we'd be hearding about crop circles in Galois fields. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:50, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::I like the "what relativity is not" idea. Might be worth pointing out that relativity in physics didn't start with SR; there is such a thing as Galilean relativity, after all. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:57, 25 February 2007 (EST)

This line must go. It is not relevant to the article. Have a disambiguation page for relativity. The citation is completely incorrect. The website http://www.moralrelativity.com/about1.html says nothing about general relativity influencing moral relativity. This article says 'Relativity has generated a huge following by advocates of moral relativism,' but the website http://www.moralrelativity.com/about1.html does not make any mention of this statement, therefore it is improperly cited. Citations are supposed to support claims, and this one does not. (Read the website for yourself). Also, just because relativity is a homophone in this case doesn't mean it belongs in an article of the (general) theory of relativity. ''Please make a disambiguation page'' because this is clearly in the wrong place.

I removed the moral relativity part from this article and placed it in a new article called [[Moral relativity]]. Relativity here is clearly just a homophone, and moral relativity is irrelevant to special or general relativity. To illustrate my point, see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativity. Relativity in physics has a special meaning. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 00:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, moral relativism is a big reason for the political support of types of relativity. It's obviously relevant to this article, and the above criticism only reinforces the need to include a reference. We can debate how to say it, but censorship is not an option here. Go to Wikipedia for that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, then that can go into the [[Moral relativity]] article, which now exists. There is no support for your claim. Neither is there a need for political support for a scientific theory. The way you describe it, moral relativity references this theory of relativity, not the other way around. The theory of relativity neither relies on moral relativity in any explanation of it or needs it to be mentioned for a complete treatment of the theory, and therefore it is inappropriate to add it here. I direct you again to the dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativity in order to clarify that relativity in this sense has specific meaning in the domain of physics, and arbritrary theories that share the word are not in this domain nor are related in any concrete way, simply being homophones. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 18:40, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Someone added more about the moral relativity bit, so I put it in the right place: in the article on [[Moral relativity]]. The section says, "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views," which is about moral relavitity and how they use the theory of relativity, not how the the theory of relativity involves moral relativity. I challenge the writer again to find a work on the physics theory that metions moral relativity at all. Just because a page mentions the theory of relativity does not make it a legitimate part of the theory itself, and as such, does not belong in this article. If anything, the [[Moral relativity]] article should make a link to this article, not the other way around. I am not sure the agenda here, but it seems that someone would like to promote moral relativity by attaching it to unrelated articles. Please add your information to the correct article in the correct place. Again, here is the link: [[Moral relativity]]. Go crazy. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

ASchlafly, you added the line "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views" and gave a citation afterwards. If you read the page that you cite, you will see that the author merely uses Special Relativity to demonstrate how moral relativism works. He does not "seize" on the theory and does not use it to "legitimize" his view. Can you find a better source please? (or remove the sentence)

: I can't tell who or when this comment was made, because it lacks the signature (use the signature button above). But I will look for more sites about to support my statement, which should be easy to find. Frankly, I've never heard anyone doubt the statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps you've been listening the wrong people. No reputable explanations of relativity mention moral relativity. Find a reputable one. Don't look for moral relativity explanations that include physics relativity, because that information belongs in [[Moral relativity]], not here. You are researching the wrong topic. Repeat: look for information about the physical theory of relativity and see if you can find one that mentions moral relativity (not pages that talk about moral relativity and mention physical relativity). Furthermore, anyone can set up a web page and say whatever they want, so web pages are generally not a very good resource (unless it's the physics department website at MIT, for instance, because it has credibility in this field). You should find reputable scientific texts. And, please, stick the topic at hand: physical science topics needs physical science resources. There is ample room in the [[Moral relativity]] article to discuss. In fact, I'm surprised you aren't contributing more to that article (especially compared to how much you try add to in this article), since you seem to be very interested in the topic and are more knowledgable about it than physical relativity. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I've received no response. Can I remove the paragraph now? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 16:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::By the way, I checked the history, and MatteeNeutra made the uncited statement above about needing a better source or removing the sentence. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 17:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== <math>e=mc^2</math> not "attributed" to Einstein. ==

<math>e=mc^2</math> isn't just "attributed" to Einstein. When someone says "attributed", they typically mean that someone is given credit for an idea somewhat apocryphally. Einstein obtained the relation in his Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper, in which, from the Lorentz transformations, he obtained the relations:

<math>E = \sqrt{c^4m^2+p^2c^2}</math>
and then, as <math>p\to0</math>:

<math>E=mc^2</math>.

And these bizarre polemics are undermining what little credibility this encyclopedia has. Sneering at Einstein and glorifying the contributions of Ponicare makes all of the sense of arguing over whether Leibniz or Newton invented calculus, particularly since there are very palpable differences between Einstein and Ponicare's treatments of the subjects. And, I see someone has removed the "there is no evidence for the general theory", but I'm sure it will be back by this afternoon. That's ever weirder -- how on earth can someone say that "there is no evidence" and then, in the same article, link to black holes?

I'm not going to go back to that article on [[Dirac Notation]] to fill up all of those links with articles until I'm sure one of the administrators isn't going to replace them with accusations of quantum mechanics being tantamount to the Kabbalah, or something equally stupid. (unsigned)

: It is a fact that Poincare published E=mc2 and most of the rest of special relativity before Einstein. Maybe you think that this is sneering or glorifying, but it is a fact, and there is no serious dispute about it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:17, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: This is true, but what Poincare described was a specific case of E=mc2. An experimental result showed that there was momentum when a body ejected EM radiation, but the mass was unaccounted for. Poincare described the mass of the EM as m=E/c2. Einstein derived this formula from more fundamental assumptions, the speed of light is absolute, etc. This is why his work is so famous. In fact, in all of science, nothing belongs to any one person, even though they may get credit, but are supposedly discovered. Also do not forget that Einstein also published General Relativity.
::Furthermore, while Poincare regarded it as superfluous, scientists of the day were still trying to work with the luminescent ether. Einstein's work proved this unnecessary.
::Again this is a lesson in science. We are always trying to compress and refine our science. Einstein, while he of course drew on other's work and surely knew of Poincare's m=E/c2 paper, his work was more refined and simpler, deriving many principles, Poincare's and new ones, from a few fundamental principles. Poincare published a paper about a month before Einstein with similar work, but in science, no one person makes a discover. Don't forget, Newton has his Hooke. But like Newton, it was Einstein's derivation and formalizations that worked better. (unsigned)

::: Yes, Poincare described was a specific case of E=mc2, but so did Einstein. Einstein did not foresee particle annihilation or nuclear energy. Poincare's description of the ether as superfluous is nearly identical to Einstein's.
::: How was Einstein's work on special relativity any more refined, simpler, or better working? I deny this. Poincare showed a better understanding of the theory than Einstein. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Don't ask me, ask Lorentz. http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm

::::: OK, I looked at your link. The first thing I saw was a claim that the 1919 eclipse proved the General Relativity. We now know that eclipse proved no such thing. So much for the credibility of that link.

::::: The link does show that Lorentz and Einstein were patting each other on the back. That's fine, but it suggests a lack of objectivity towards the odd man out, Poincare. This dispute cannot be resolved by self-interested party, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Can't get much more credible than a publication by Lorentz on Gutenberg, bud. It may be dated, but it is closer to the date of Einstein's work. As far as I see you, you have the burden to prove your claim as much as everyone else has to support the opposite claim. Where is your evidence of credible sources? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 18:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Old version ==

I was just looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_Relativity&oldid=15341 an old version of this page], and the absurdity of the "scientific" claims made, combined with the low quality of the writing and blatant inaccuracies, make the article, quite frankly, almost intellectually offensive. I realize that this has since been rectified, but if this is the quality that is to be expected of Conservapedia articles, then I do not blame those who dismiss it as a failed attempt. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:12, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: be specific in your statements if you expect a response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I find the content reverted to in the above edit to be quite disturbing.

* The General Theory of Relativity does ''not'' reject Isaac Newton's "God-given" theory of gravitation, it simply provides an explanation for ''why'' it functions.

: that was obviously vandalism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* It is most certainly ''not'' a problem that the General Theory of Relativity is based upon mathematics as opposed to empirical evidence, as seems to be insinuated by this version.

: mathematics is mathematics, and unless there is empirical evidence it is not science.

::Mathematics describes physics. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* Albert Einstein's work ''did'' contribute to the development of the nuclear bomb. ''E=mc2'' describes the duality between matter and energy, the principle upon which the nuclear bomb, and all other nuclear devices, functions.

: nope. ''E=mc2'' is a statement of relativistic effect, not atomic power.

::Yes, but the mass lost in the nuclear reaction is converted to energy, which is the fundamental power of the weapon. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* "Nothing useful has even been built based on the theory of relativity." Sure, sure… nuclear power plants aren't useful at ''all'', are they? GPSs aren't useful ''at all'', are they?

: GPSs are useful, but they weren't built using General Relativity.
:: Without realativity describing gravitation redshift, the timing for the GPS satelite would be off by about 45 microseconds/day. Further reading on the matter at http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:08, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: I think Lorenzian relativity accounts for the GPS time dilation more precisely. But that isn't really my point. The GPS clocks are updated based on communications between the satellites and ground stations, not based on any theory. If you claim that GPS is built based on relativity, then you should be able to prove your case with an historical reference. No such proof exists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: That observation does not support the false claim that GPS is based on General Relativity. Other theories predict a dilation of time, and satellites are obviously synchronized based on communication, not theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::No, they have GR corrections built in. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::Can you please cite an alternate theory that accounts for the time dilation experiecned by the GPS satelites along with the math that matches that of relativity? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:17, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* "Most conservatives are skeptical since science is supposed to be about finding proof before a theory becomes a fact, not after." And ''where'' are the statistics that show this?

: Don't know who wrote that statement, but it's a correct statement of what science means.

::I was refering to the claim that "''most'' conservatives are skeptical since science…" (emphasis added) [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* Gravitons are not predicted by general relativity; much to the contrary, the two have not been reconciled.

* It is currently believed that space does indeed have curvature, what is described as "negative" curvature, giving it a saddle-like shape overall, but curvature nonetheless.

The denial of demonstrated principles because they do not coincide with your worldview is not scientific, it's purely reactionary nonsense. I'm not impressed by Examples of Bias in Wikipedia citing Wikipedians taking issue with this as a "bias". [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 16:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: OK, fine, no one is trying to impress you. The Wikipedia entry was biased and demonstrably false, as explained in [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Oh, and I mean no offense to Aschlafly. Although I do not necessarily agree with all his views, I do not wish to disparage him, and I recognize his value as a contributor. I've reconciled with him on this issue, and want to make clear that I do not mean this comment as an attack. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: I just realized that I had somehow managed to fail to see that Aschlafly's edit was a simple revert to a previous version. I don't necessarily agree with the decision, and I don't retract the points with which I take issue, but Aschlafly is not responsible for the content, and I'm sorry for insinuating that he was. I've changed some of my comment to reflect the fact that the edit was simply a revert. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Merge with draft==

There is a draft for this article [[Theory of relativity/draft | here]]. Surely it's about time these two were merged together or at the very least decide which one is to be continued. I will continue to work on Theory of Relativity/draft as I feel it is a much clearer article. What does everyone else think? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 07:33, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: Your draft article has some great stuff in it. Would you like to merge it into the main article now? However, please do not delete anything from the main article as part of the merge. Thanks and a good Easter to you.

: By the way, it appears that relativity is taught in college without using the concept of relativistic mass. But let's go with your relativistic mass as you wrote it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, I'll take a shot at a merge now. Relativistic mass is quite important to the theory, as from it we can determine that matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== This isn't Wikipedia ==

Teji, don't delete facts here that liberals don't like. This isn't Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Please read my explanation above. I don't think anyone likes unsourced information that is in the wrong topic. Please contribute to [[Moral relativity]]. I had to create that page while someone was adding information about it to the this topic. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Furthermore, that link is about moral relativity, not special relativity. It belongs in [[Moral relativity]]. It is shocking that someone so interested in that topic didn't even think to make the article. In fact, I started that article! [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:12, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here is what I said above in case you didn't catch it: ''No reputable explanations of relativity mention moral relativity. Find a reputable one. Don't look for moral relativity explanations that include physics relativity, because that information belongs in Moral relativity, not here. You are researching the wrong topic. Repeat: look for information about the physical theory of relativity and see if you can find one that mentions moral relativity (not pages that talk about moral relativity and mention physical relativity). Furthermore, anyone can set up a web page and say whatever they want, so web pages are generally not a very good resource (unless it's the physics department website at MIT, for instance, because it has credibility in this field). You should find reputable scientific texts. And, please, stick the topic at hand: physical science topics needs physical science resources. There is ample room in the Moral relativity article to discuss. In fact, I'm surprised you aren't contributing more to that article (especially compared to how much you try add to in this article), since you seem to be very interested in the topic and are more knowledgable about it than physical relativity. Teji 13:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)''

:I find it interesting that when you cannot support your information you resort to name-calling and statements about wikipedia. Does this site want credible and accurate information or information with an agenda? Because if it is the latter, please make a statement to that effect in your policy pages, or would that make this website too credible and accurate? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Teji, the statement does not claim that the theory of relativity supports moral relativity, but merely that supporters of moral relativity seized upon the theory of relativity to justify their views. "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views.[3] Historians such as Paul Johnson wrote about how the theory of relativity caused a sea change, justified or not, in 20th century thought." That statement is correct and should not be deleted. Read it, and reread it, and only comment further here if you can provide something that specifically refutes that statement. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:It is in the wrong place. The statement is clearly about [[Moral relativity]]. This statement is also correct: ''Jesus is God'', does it belong in this article? No. Here is another correct statement: ''morality is "what is the good" and ethics is "how do I practice it"'' from the moral relativity site. Does it belong in this artcle? Certainly not. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Correctness is not enough. There also must be accuracy. Information about [[Moral relativity]] belongs in that article. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Maybe you should change the title to just "Relativity". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, how do I do that? We could also make a disambiguation page, but I don't know how to do that either. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::RSchlafly, you've missed the point. This article is about the Theory of Relativity as a scientific theory. As such, the article should not talk about Moral relativity which, apart from sharing using the same word, is absolutely nothing at all to do with the Theory of Relativity. I also, do not think that the sentence about Moral relativity should be put on this article. At the very most a link at the bottom of this article to Moral relativity, but you may as well link it to a page on forestry for all the relevance it has. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 05:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Exactly, if you want to speak about moral relativists using special or general relativity as validation for their philosophy then it should be placed in an articlea bout moral relativism. It should '''not''' be here. Perhaps - perhaps - it could go in a section on the influence of the theory of relativity on 20th century culture.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why was quote about Dicke removed? ==

I added this quote about the Francis Dicke's theory. Aschalfy, why did you remove it without any comments? It is from the same time magazine article that is already cited in this article. It clarifies why Dicke's theory is less professionally accepted! Please read the article yourself. It shows that Einstein's theory was closer than Dicke's.

''But the J.P.L. experimenters reduced the margin of error to 4% or less by locating the distant spacecraft within 100 ft. of their actual position. Thus, when they calculated that the signal to Mariner was slowed down by 204 millionths of a second on its round trip, '''they dealt the Brans-Dicke theory a sharp if not decisive blow'''. Their measurement was only 4 millionths of a second off the Einsteinian prediction, but 18 millionths of a second off the Brans-Dicke figure.'' http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html

This is the same article that that is cited for the statement ''Physicist Robert Dicke of Princeton University was a prominent critic[7]''. The same article that shows why Robert Dicke's theory is not accepted among scientists. Dicke suffered not just because he criticized Einstein's theory, but also because his theory was not as accurate. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Time magazine is not an authority on whether Dicke's theory is better than Einstein's. Our [[rules]] are very clear not to cite journalists as authorities beyond their expertise. A scientific citation that I added shows that Dicke's theory is held in high regard to this day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The JPL isn't?

::: You've got to do better than that if you want a response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: And a link from the JPL http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/70s/release_1970_0566.html --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That's an old self-serving press release about only one study. My footnote about relativity, citing a renaissance in Dicke's theory, is more recent and more comprehensive, and is based on a astrophysics encyclopedia. So your cite is not appropriate.

:::: And another article http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/9404/dicke.html about Dicke's critique of relativity and where it failed to produce a better answer. Tests included sodium lines in the sun, distance to the moon, and precession of Mercury. I do not believe that it is fair to say that the ''theory'' is held in high regard today. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll take a look at this. I must say, however, that any article that starts out by calling its opponent a "crank" lacks credibility. But this cite is worth including to reflect the political bias against Dicke, resulting in his being denied the Nobel Prize.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::It actually specifically says that Dicke was not a "crank." [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Ah, yes. The author charitably concedes that Dicke himself was not a crank, just anyone who supported Dicke's view was.

::::: This article, which I'm reading now, is incredibly biased and one-sided. It declares the "General Theory" to be possibly the "greatest single achievement in physics ... of all time." And the author states his extremely biased view before telling us about testing results. Too bad this conflicts with the encyclopedia I cite in the content page. The value of this article is to show how intolerant supporters of the "General Theory" are of any criticism, including that by Dicke.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: If Dicke's results were as good or better than General Relativity, then there would be no issue at all. It also addresses reference #8 about not getting a Nobel Prize - that is because the prize is for discovery, not interpretations. He wasn't a theoretician and thus didn't have other theories and discoveries. The individual Dicke is held with high regard in the community - his theory is not (though it is respected in developing the framework for relativistic events). I am curious to see a citation that shows his theory as being respected for the results it gives. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::: Also the article you misuse by taking the whole renaissance statement out of says this in the same paragraph before your quote!
::::::::''Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time.''
::::::: [[User:Teji|Teji]] 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Muon experiment from another point of view ==

From the point of view of the muon in the experiment mentioned, time is not slowed down, but rather distance is compressed. So instead of dilating time 5x across 10km of travel at relativistic speed, the muon saw that space had compressed from 10km to 2km (also 5x) and it was still traveling that distance. Thus, the same result - just different perspectives. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:50, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ref: Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was never given a Nobel Prize. ==

I would like to remove this reference. Nobel Prizes are given for discoveries and advancements. Dicke was an experimentalist - not a theorist. He didn't make discoveries or advancements but rather proved or disproved what the theorists came up with. As such, the work he did was not something that was noted by those nominating for the Nobel Prize. Likewise, you won't see a book critic get a Nobel Prize for literature, no matter how good of a critic he or she may be. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:02, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: Given that there has been no comment on this in opposition, I am removing the reference until someone can dispute the question of if any of Dicke's work was the type for which a Nobel Prize would have been given. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:46, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: I'm reverting your change. Experimentalists win the Nobel Prize all the time. A prize was given to someone else for work Dicke was doing. In fact, experimentalists probably win the prize more than theorists. The deletion of that sentence is for liberal purposes, and we don't allow that here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Government support of relativity research problems ==

The section on government support of relativity research needs a big re-write, but it needs to be clear what is intended first. There are several specific complaints which seem to have been jumbled together:
#LIGO was a failure, and the money could have been spent elsewhere.
#Too much money is spent on string theory and similar theories.
#The government does not support research into (unspecified) alternate theories.

#This is just liberal crybabying. Not all experiments work, and you can't know ahead of time which ones will. Most such complaints about too much money being spent on some experimental program are based on the idea of government as sugar-daddy, and whining when sugar-daddy likes someone else best.
#This complaint is more legitimate, as there are serious claims that string theory is not a scientific theory. However, this complaint doesn't belong in this article, because string theory is not relativity; it's an attempt to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics. String theory would replace general relativity, if a coherent theory were formulated, and then tested.
#This complaint seems ridiculous, as the government has funded plenty of tests to verify general relativity; any experimenter who wants to test an alternate theory can devise a test which would produce one result if GR is correct, and another if the alternate theory is true, and ask for funding for a test to verify GR.

On the other hand, perhaps the section could be deleted altogether. [[User:Ultramontanist|Ultramontanist]] 02:02, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== Relativistic mass ==
This paragraph is nonsense:
: 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. But mass is not a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is unacceptable.

The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is. Some don't like the term "relatvistic mass", but for other reasons.

This is also nonsense:
:In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
::1. It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.
:: 2. The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
:: 3. The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

This is not a restatement. Relativity says masses cannot for faster than light. Probably not information either, but that is another principle. Parts 2 and 3 are confusing and misleading, at best. Relativity teaches that there are no inertial frames in the universe. The laws of physics apply throughout the universe. They apply whether there is acceleration or not. But special relativity has more to do with inertial frames.

I suggest getting rid of these "layman's terms". They aren't. They don't clarify anything for anybody. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:29, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== GPS edit ==

Bayes, your claim that GPS is based on the Theory of General Relativity is not correct. GPS synchronization can be done directly, and has never relied on the theory. Your edits should be reverted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:My apologies. I didn't mean to edit recklessly; I thought I was correcting a typo. In fact, the [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html source cited by that sentence] ''before'' I made my edit (and many other sources as well) indicate that relativistic corrections are, in fact, taken into account by GPS receivers. Clocks on the satellites run at different rates than those on the ground due to the fact that they are at a higher altitude, where gravity is weaker; hence the need for a correction for gravitational time dilation, as predicted by general relativity. Yes, that means that clocks in Denver tick slightly faster than clocks in New York. I would be happy to look at any sources you can provide that show how GPS keeps accurate time without those corrections.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:30, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Your citation is to a silly, unsupported and off-hand remark by a professor of astronomy. GPS was built by engineers in the 1970s, who would not have even attempted to calculated the time dilation using relativity. There would be no reason to rely on relativity, since the clocks can be and were synchronized more directly, more simply and more accurately by communicating with them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:09, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::1. Let me reiterate that the citation was there before I made my edit. The previous version denied that relativistic corrections are necessary, and then cited a source to the contrary. Your recent edit makes a similar claim, but cites a source that doesn't delve deeply into technical aspects of how GPS actually works, and is therefore irrelevant to the claim. 
:::2. You can dismiss the citation in question if you like, but it seems that the overwhelming majority of experts disagree; consider [http://www.aticourses.com/global_positioning_system.htm 1] [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp 2] [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf 3], which I doubt would be considered "silly, unsupported and off-hand remark[s]." 
:::3. GPS designers in the 1970s certainly knew about relativistic effects. Here's an exerpt from [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf 3]: 
:::[B]efore the first GPS satellite was launched in 1977, although it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require such a relativistic offset, there was uncertainty as to its magnitude, and even its sign. So correcting frequency synthesizers were built into the clocks, spanning a large enough range around the nominal 10.23 MHz clock frequency to encompass all possibilities. After the satellite's cesium atomic clock was turned on, it was operated for three weeks to measure its rate. The frequency shift measured during this initial period was found to be 4.425 parts per ten billion, agreeing with the relativistic calculation to better than 1%. 
:::4. Yes, communication with the satellites is possible. That doesn't change the fact that satellite clocks run at different rates than ground-based clocks, which would result in huge errors if the satellite clock frequencies weren't compensated for time dilation effects.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:17, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== Criticism of LIGO ==

The criticism of LIGO under the heading "Government funding..." should be viewed in context. The observatories are not yet operating at their maximum level of precision. The usual procedure when building large projects like this is to make sure they work at more imprecise levels, and then "tune" them closer and closer to their limits. It isn't surprising that LIGO has not yet detected gravitational waves, and the consensus is that such waves will be detected in the future. The [http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html cource cited] for that criticism even mentions that physicists are "confident" that LIGO will be successful. After all, the NSF doesn't shell out hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money on a coin flip; they were/are convinced that getting results is a slam dunk.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:48, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

: Hope springs eternal. I'm afraid you sound like an oil-well driller (wildcatter) who, after encountering one dry well after another in a region, says "just spend a little more money and drill again!"

: LIGO has been a disappointment so far, and there is no sign of success right around the corner. At some point accountability is in order, even if more money is to be spent searching gravity waves. Realize that this search has been ongoing for 100 years, without any detection. How many more years are necessary?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:12, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::While I fully agree that accountability for all major budget items is in order at some point, I don't think the oil-driller analogy is valid in this context. LIGO is still far from its designed sensitivity, as mentioned [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJM-4B5R97X-F&_user=1010281&_handle=V-WA-A-W-VB-MsSAYVA-UUW-U-AAVUWVWVAB-AABDYWBWAB-CEYDYDUEB-VB-U&_fmt=summary&_coverDate=01%2F21%2F2004&_rdoc=15&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%235314%232004%23994829998%23476198%21&_cdi=5314&view=c&_acct=C000050264&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1010281&md5=6a930932559a96137a8b6aafdb2d9372 here]. Plans are already underway to do go beyond merely detecting gravitational waves to doing astrophysics with them. Furthermore, detection of gravitational waves requires extreme sensitivity that can only be achieved with modern technology. Serious efforts to detect them didn't begin until the 1960s, when Joseph Weber built his bar detectors, and even then the scientific consensus was that his detectors weren't sensitive enough. Some scientific advances just have to wait for technology to allow their discovery. Tell you what, if LIGO is considered a failure in 10 years, I owe you a Coke.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:40, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::It's been nearly 2 years since your message above, and LIGO has been operational for nearly 7 years. Do you really insist on waiting a full 10 years (after spending a billion dollars) before allowing some accountability? LIGO soaked up a ton of research money that could have been spent on promising technology and potential cures.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

== Other issues ==
There are some other aspects of this article that I would like to consider adding to or changing.
*A fair amount of text is dedicated to Eddington's findings and not many other astronomical observations. Eddington published his results in 1919; obviously, since then, there have been many others who have improved on his observations.
*The "Ostensible Paradoxes" section should be heavily altered or removed; there aren't any paradoxes listed there. First, the SR postulates don't offer any opinion on whether physical constants have had the same value throughout the history of the universe; they state that all inertial observers get the same answer when they measure the speed of light. Second, there are several ways to measure wave velocity; some of the most common are [[group velocity]] and [[phase velocity]]. Both types of velocities can exceed the speed of light (''c'') without violating special relativity. However, the energy velocity and information velocity do not exceed ''c'', also in accordance with SR. There is nothing mysterious or sinister going on here; these concepts are addressed or at least mentioned in many undergraduate courses. Third, the universal constant ''c'' is the speed of light ''in vacuum''; the speed of light ''in materials'' is less than than ''c'' since the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of materials are different than those of vacuum. That means that matter can travel faster than light ''in a material'' without violating SR; try Googling [[Cerenkov radiation]].--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:28, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'm concerned about the use of some citations, which seem to be misrepresented in order to discredit relativity. For instance:
:*The Economist article cited does not attack relativity; it's a discussion of how GR is being tested to its limits, like any other theory. If any improved theory of gravity is found, GR is likely to be a useful subset of it, in the same way that Newtonian gravity is a useful subset of GR. And anyway, I thought non-scientific sources [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_relativity&diff=prev&oldid=95688 weren't supposed to used] in these situations.
:*The new cite for the statement ''There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views'' is an opinion piece about how moral relativists hijacked scientific relativity for their own purposes. The cite doesn't make that claim, and it doesn't show any data to support it. Frankly, I'd be very surprised if any such correlation existed. Even IF that kind of correlation existed, it doesn't belong in a scientific article.

:The overall tone of the article seems to try to convince the reader to be skeptical of relativity. It appears to me that such skepticism is ideologically motivated, e.g., ''Although the liberally biased Wikipedia contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries...'', ''The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project...'', ''There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views''. I don't fully understand the motivation, but it bears repeating that good science (of which relativity is a part) is independent of ideology.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:54, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:: You're not the first to deny a [[liberal bias]] in science. But surely you would agree that the following areas of science, and perhaps nearly of all science, are susceptible to political bias:

**[[global warming]]
**nuclear energy
**the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]
**claims of extraterritorial life
**demands for government funding of science

::--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I absolutely agree that deciding what science to fund, implementation of policies pertaining to scientific findings, or practical use of scientific results (like nuclear weapons), and perhaps some other issues not mentioned are or can be politicized. But I stand by my basic point: if you get a liberal to measure acceleration due to gravity on Earth's surface, and then get a conservative to do the same thing, they'll both get 9.8 m/s^2. Similarly, relativity has been around long enough, has useful applications, and is so successful in predicting experimental outcomes that it should not be subject to the same treatment as the more controversial topics you mention.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:24, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: You apparently don't concede the liberal bias in the majority of my examples above, such as global warming and SDI. When I worked as engineer at a research facility in the 1980s, we had an IBM scientist with impeccable credentials give a presentation claim that SDI was impossible, dangerous, and bad politics. It's silly to pretend that his claim of impossibility of SDI was unrelated to politics. Likewise, it's silly to pretend there is no political bias in global warming theories. But if we can't agree on that, then there is little point in discussing this further. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Did you read the first sentence of my post above? Global warming is an example of tough policy decisions that could be implemented based on scientific findings. Surely both conservatives and liberals agree with the basic finding that the earth is warming. Similarly, the political debate over SDI was about the USE of science and technology, not the FINDINGS of science and technology. Sure, scientists can have opinions about what to do with their findings, but presumably the experimental results are valid across political lines. In any case, this is an aside; my specific concerns with the article, as addressed on this page, still stand. I assume by your willingness to exit the conversation that you don't have any problems with me addressing them?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:48, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Your first sentence omitted any reference to global warming. Global warming is a liberal scientific theory about if and why the earth is warming. Yes, there are political biases in many scientific theories. If you can't accept that, then I urge you to become more open-minded first before trying to pretend that something is immune from politics.

:::: I have no objections to factual edits of this article that add information. I do object to pushing a liberal point of view by deleting factual information. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:02, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: Sounds good. However, the fact that GPS satellite clocks have built-in corrections for relativistic effects is something I inserted previously, and it was reverted. I hope you understand that I brought up these issues in an effort to accurately represent the science, and not because of some agenda. As I've said, I don't think special and general relativity are associated with political controversy.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 19:12, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Bayes, you continue to insist on a falsehood, and I attribute that to [[liberal]] distortions in what you've read elsewhere. Please recognize that politics does distort science. '''GPS satellite clocks were not built based on predictions made by the theory of relativity.'''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: See my post above, where I have cited several sources that assert the contrary. On the other hand, you have yet to provide any evidence of how GPS can work without taking such corrections into account. Your source for that claim does not address timing issues with regard to GPS. I have to say that I'm increasingly baffled by your continued denial of this verifiable fact. How would a vast liberal conspiracy gain from hiding how clocks work?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:00, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Bayes, you're talking to a former engineer. GPS was built by engineers, not by theoretical physicists. GPS never used the theory of relativity. If you continue to dispute that (likely due to [[liberal]] bias), then give me your very best cite for your claim that GPS used the theory of relativity and I'll look at it. Otherwise, drop it and move on to a different issue. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:41, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

GPS and relativity links:
* http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
* http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
* http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm (actual equations)
* http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
* http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~kpgokeef/pubs/ENGO625relativity.pdf (slides from an engineering lecture - see pages 23-30 for listing of relativistic effects GPS accounts for - note conclusions on page 31.)
--[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 21:53, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: No, you're not listening. Give me your best cite for the claim that GPS *uses* the theory of relativity. Pick out your best, that's all I'm going to waste time on, since the answer is obvious to any engineer: GPS never used the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:58, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:: In that case, I should probably reference http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf "GPS And Relativity: An Engineering Overview".
:: The first page introduction finishes with "In this paper, we compare the predictions of relativity to those of intuitive, classical, Newtonian physics; we show how large or small the differences are, and how and what applications those difference are large enough to make it necessary to correct the formulas of classical physics."
:: Lorentz Contraction is covered on page 2, Gravitational redshift on page 3, and the acceleration of the satellite on page 4.
::: "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 -4.45x10-10 (= -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."
:: Does that help answer the question? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 22:22, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::: The very first sentences of this paper prove my point (emphasis added):

:::: 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 - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: 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 remainder of the paper is theoretical speculation about how a future GPS system might use relativity. There is disagreement about how relativity might be used, as reflected by comments in the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:05, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: The remainder of the paper is about improvements to the GPS system. The paper was published in '97. In 2001, the system was updated. With Block II GPS satelites, OCS was rewritten so that it doesn't require constant updates from ground stations to reset the clocks http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/mail/igsreport/1994/msg00146.html (example of clock reset for relativity prior to 2001). Instead, now, accounting for relativity constantly the GPS satellites are able to offer much more accurate positioning (this was required, as mentioned by the paper I previously linked, the 6 meter accuracy - it is now required by the 2001 performance standard http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/2001SPSPerformanceStandardFINAL.pdf (page 20 of the document, section 3.4) . If you are willing to reset the clock periodically and accept errors between clock resets - then you can discount relativity. If you want high accuracy all the time, you must take relativity into account between synchronizations. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:58, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: The remainder of the paper is about '''proposed''' improvements to the GPS system. There is nothing indicating that those proposals were ever implemented. So that paper strikes out as support for the claim that GPS relies on relativity.

::::: Now you're pointing me to a new paper. I'll look at it in the morning but, as I said, pick your best one. If this paper strikes out also then I'm unlikely to keep looking at more and more papers to explain why each one fails to support the claim. Please provide your very best cite, as I requested before. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:07, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::How about [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf this one], written by [http://www.colorado.edu/physics/Web/directory/faculty/ashby_n.html Neil Ashby] for [http://www.physicstoday.org/ Physics Today], a major publication of the AIP. Again, I quote from a portion, although the entire paper is about the issue in question:

:::::"[B]efore the first GPS satellite was launched in 1977, although it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require such a relativistic offset, there was uncertainty as to its magnitude, and even its sign. So correcting frequency synthesizers were built into the clocks, spanning a large enough range around the nominal 10.23 MHz clock frequency to encompass all possibilities. After the satellite's cesium atomic clock was turned on, it was operated for three weeks to measure its rate. The frequency shift measured during this initial period was found to be 4.425 parts per ten billion, agreeing with the relativistic calculation to better than 1%."

::::You've now been presented with many sources from Rutm and I supporting GR implementation in GPS, and you have yet to produce one source that says that GPS works on only classical principles. Furthermore, I question your motivation in demanding one "best" source, since I anticipate that you will attempt to attack the "best source," perhaps by invoking "liberal bias" (as if it existed in this case--either the clocks run at different frequencies or they don't), ignoring the vast consensus, and proclaim "victory."--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 10:56, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, I think I now (finally!) understand what's going on. I think we have a misunderstanding here; we're talking about two different kinds of corrections. The paper supplied by Rutm (and quoted in the current article) is discussing relativistic corrections to the frequency of signals measured by the receivers. That paper is from the early 1990s, and at that time no relativistic corrections were performed for those signals (though corrections might be taken into account now). Throughout this discussion, I have been referring to the fact that clocks on GPS space vehicles have ALWAYS had built-in frequency offsets to account for the relativistic effects on moving clocks and clocks in gravitational potentials. It's a question of corrections made to the '''communications''' between GPS components and the '''on-board clocks''' of the satellites; the former are not as important, while the latter are very important. Any problems with inserting this nuance into the article?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 19:14, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Andy, that GPS quote is extremely misleading. It implies that the relativistic effects are too small to be significant. But the rest of the paragraph explains that relativistic corrections are necessary to meet the accuracy requirements of most users. The article is incorrect when it states, "Predictions of relativity have not historically been used to make the Global Positioning System (GPS) function properly." Relativity has in fact been used, and programmed into satellites and receivers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:48, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:That's simply not true. GPS adjustments have been based on observation, not theoretical prediction. Effects predicted by relativity are offsetting to each other and the experts could not even agree in which direction the small net effect would be.
:This is a matter of historical fact and it's astonishing that the demands to rewrite history about this are so persistent. The quote confirms the obvious: GPS adjustments are based on observation, not theoretical prediction.
:For those who claim to have such a thorough understanding of GPS here, how about answering the question below: does Newtonian mechanics predict any divergence in the clocks from the satellite compared to ground? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: No, the fact is that the GPS satellites have operated both with and without the relativistic corrections. The cited articles confirm that. You are completely wrong to say that relativistic corrections have not been used.
:: The relativistic corrections partially offset each other, but not entirely, and they are big enough to affect accuracy in a typical consumer GPS unit. It is also false to say that there is disagreement among physicists on the point.
:: If you were right, then find an article that supports what you say. That paragraph you quote ends with "large enough to make it necessary to correct the formulas of classical physics." Include that, and give the date on the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:09, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:The article first states the obvious: GPS is not designed using the theory of relativity. Then the article discusses an ongoing and unresolved dispute about exactly what the theory of relativity does predict for the numerous factors involved in the GPS system, and makes its own unverified claims. Relativity predicts time differences going in both directions, and there are issues about what the inertial frame should be. One article cited earlier, which I will try to find and reinsert, states that Lorentzian (not Special) Relativity generally matches observations best.

:GPS was built by engineers and there is no reason for them to rely on the theory of relativity. It is far simpler and more reliable simply to observe the time differences. Engineers don't study the theory of relativity, and if you think a physicist well-versed in the theory of relativity provided essential predictions for the GPS engineers, then who was he? Give us his name and he we can simply ask him. Was he nominated for a Nobel prize? Surely he would have at least published a paper about his work. Where is it????

:And where is the answer to the question as to whether Newtonian mechanics predicts time difference in the GPS system also? After all, if someone is going to claim that GPS confirms the superiority of relativity to Newtonian mechanics, then surely he must first make a statement about whether Newtonian mechanics predicts a time difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:56, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: What you say is just not true. GPS was designed with an understanding of the magnitude of the relativistic effects. The effects are well-understood, and no one was nominated for a Nobel prize for predicting the effects. Yes, there were engineers who didn't study relativity and didn't think that relativistic effects would be significant. They have been proven wrong. There are no unresolved disputes. You have been given several references that tell the story. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:41, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

::: To sum:

*** no physicists have been identified who supposedly incorporated relativity into the GPS design
*** no papers exist describing how relativity *was* (not "might be") used in GPS
*** references that have been provided describe disagreements among physicists about the relativistic predictions for GPS
*** those claiming that GPS confirms relativity compared to Newtonian mechanics don't know whether Newtonian mechanics also predicts time differences, which renders the comparison pointless.

::: I realize that historical revisionism is common in many areas, but I would hope that science would adhere to a higher standard. Sometimes, unfortunately, science seems be even more vulnerable to revisionism. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:04, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: I will respond to this post below, under "Question about GPS"--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 13:55, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: As Bayes explains, the papers do say that relativity was used in GPS. Just what is the disagreement among physicists? I didn't see any in your references. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:43, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: No, none of the papers state that a physicist or group of physicists provided the complex relativistic predictions and that those predictions were incorporated into a particular GPS system. Engineers don't study relativity, and if physicists provided these predictions to a GPS system then there would be (a) names of physicists, (b) dates of incorporation, and (c) adjustments based on results. None of this happened.

::::: The claim that relativistic predictions were actually used in an actual GPS system wouldn't last 5 minutes on a witness stand at trial. It's pure fiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:20, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Theory of Relativity (moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]) ==

I found it offensive that you labelled my edit a "liberal edit". I was not aware of the Corpuscular Theory of Light, and therefore I did not know what "Newton's theory" in that sentence was referring to. Since there was no link (as there is now) to a page which shows Einstein's formula being two times more than his previous one, which was stated to be same as Newton's, I changed the sentence to the best of my knowledge - that light was viewed as a wave through ether at Newton's time, and therefore his theory of gravity does not apply.

How my mistake is a "liberal edit" is beyond me.
[[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:47, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: Please accept my apologies. By way of explanation, not as justification, liberals love relativism and their spin on the theory of relativity, and exaggerate everything associated with it. Claiming that relativity predicts the bending of light while Newton did not is one of those exaggerations. A simple search on the internet before deleting something here is always advisable, and that simple search reveals how Newton's theory predicts the bending of light too (though not by as much). I think this Newtonian prediction is in high school physics problem books, so it is not obscure.

: Regardless, thanks for your efforts and I look forward to more additions by you here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::I'll search the internet before making changes next time. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:04, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Ashlafly, I am concerned about the overall tone of the [[relativity]] article. Some statements suggest the presence of an anti-relativity agenda. Am I correct in guessing that this stance is due to a perceived link between moral relativism, the Democratic party, and the scientific concept of relativity? If so, I'd like to point out that while scientific funding by the government is certainly a political issue, actual scientific research is a separate issue and is independent of political leanings. The outcome of a proper experiment does not depend on whether the scientists conducting it are conservative or liberal. You are indeed justified if you are objecting to overzealous extrapolations based on scientific findings (such as moral relativism being based on scientific relativity), but such extrapolations have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific findings themselves. IMHO, encyclopedic articles on the scientific concept of relativity should stick to the science and not go into philosophy or politics. Furthermore, criticism of concepts such as moral relativism should be concerned with the merits (or lack thereof) of the concepts themselves, not on sound science that has nothing to do with it. Attempts to discredit relativity because of perceived links to philosohical or political positions that one disagrees with are not scientific, and fly in the face of undeniable experimental verification, basic facts (like how GPS satellite clocks function) and essentially universal acceptance of at least the basic principles. If you would like to incorporate some of the material on the current relativity page into a separate article, such as [[Historical views of relativity]], a personal essay, or something similar, then I would be all for it. I have not yet edited the relativity article heavily, but please see [[Talk:Theory of relativity]] for some of my specific conerns.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:56, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: I have already responded to this above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:32, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

== Question about GPS ==
Does Newtonian mechanics predict that clocks on GPS satellites will diverge from clocks on earth? That is not an easy question to answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:32, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:As far as I'm aware, no. It's relativity that predicts that there will be a divergence in time, for reasons already discussed. However, I want to throw in: both of you aruging about whether GPS satellites use relativity are correct in certain ways. Andy, you're correct that there is no actual use of relativity on the circuits on board the satellite. For those arguing that relativity is used, you're correct too; based on predictions from both general and special relativity, the clocks on the satellites are fine tuned with an offset to minimize the nano-second order deviations from clocks on the ground. Then, for practical purposes, newtonian based approximations are acceptable accuracy-wise. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 14:08, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

: Mr. Schlafly, I apologize for not responding more quickly. Newtonian mechanics cannot account for the observed divergence in clock rates. Classically, inertial reference frames are related by [[Galilean transformations]]:

:: x' = x + vt
:: t' = t

:: where x and x' are positions in the rest and moving frame, respectively
:: t and t' are times in the rest and moving frame, respectively
:: v is the velocity of the moving frame relative to the rest frame. Note that frame labels like "rest" and "moving" are arbitrary.

: According to those transformations, time in all inertial frames is the same (t' = t), and therefore no time dilation is predicted. However, the Lorentz transformations that relate inertial frames according to special relativity DO predict time dilation. So that would allow for corrections based on the relative speeds of the satellites. However, you could reconcile the time difference using classical mechanics IF you assert that the speed of light in the moving frame is different from the speed of light in the rest frame; that would essentially mean that the satellites are measuring a different light speed than the earth is. Such assertions would conflict with experimental evidence.

: Another, more significant time dilation effect is due to gravitational time dilation, predicted by general relativity, which is dependent on the curvature of spacetime. Newtonian gravity incorporates an "action at a distance" principle and does not incorporate spacetime curvature, and therefore predicts no gravitational time dilation.

: Also, your statement that no sources have been provided showing that corrections for relativistic effects were historically incorporated is incorrect, as I have twice quoted from a Physics Today article (see above) showing that devices allowing for such corrections to clock frequencies were used when the satellites were first launched. I'm still convinced we have a misunderstanding; the satellite clock frequencies have used and do need relativistic corrections, but once those corrections are implemented, Newtonian physics works fine for communication and position calculations (although some sources seem to indicate that may not be true for fast-moving objects, like jets and so forth). However, you have successfully convinced me that there is something of a political element in some areas of science :)--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:40, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Bayes, it's wrong to assert that Newtonian mechanics does not predict time differences in GPS clocks. You can't build a clock that would be uneffected by acceleration under Newtonian mechanics.
:: Let's be frank for a moment. It's absurd to insist that an experiment proves theory A is superior to theory B when there is no understanding of what theory B even says about the experiment. Theory A may indeed be better than theory B, but superiority is not demonstrated by that experiment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:26, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::: You got a physics paper saying that relativity explains the GPS clock differences to within 1%. There is no Newtonian explanation for the differences. Just give the fact, and let the reader decide which theory is superior. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:48, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: The paper does not demonstrate that relativity predictions were incorporated into GPS. No paper demonstrates that.
:::: A few (not many) papers claim that observed GPS clock differences can be explained by relativity. That is a very different claim, and requires examining carefully the assumptions made in the calculations to justify a claim that the theory matches an observed result. It also requires comparing the calculations to Newtonian calculations, which the papers utterly fail to do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: Yes, of course those papers compare to Newtonian calculations. That is why they are called "GPS clock differences". They are the differences between the relativistic and Newtonian calculations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: No they don't. Those few papers attempting to match relativity theory with GPS clock results all implicitly assume that the effects on the accelerated clocks from Newtonian mechanics are zero. That is likely wrong. And that explains why there are so few papers and so few physicists who claim personally to have confirmed GPS results with relativity theory.

:::::: If GPS results really did confirm relativity theory, then this would be in textbooks and classroom assignments. It isn't. Only a few obscure physicists even make the claim asserted here, and because they implicitly make the assumption that Newtonian effects are zero, their claims are not credible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: Yes, of course the Newtonian effect on time are zero. What are you suggesting -- that some unknown Newtonian effect might predict a GPS clock difference that just happens to match the relativistic calculation? The fact remains that the GPS clock differences are predicted by relativity, and not by any other theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: There is a Newtonian effect on the clocks. Yet this was not even addressed by a few obscure physicists who claim to derive, using relativity while disagreeing with other experts, the exact same result as the observed GPS time differences. This omission hardly inspires confidence in their unverified work. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: It wasn't addressed because it doesn't exist. Do you have any reliable source that says that a Newtonian effect can explain the observed GPS time differences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:13, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: And if there is no such paper, then the relativity claim about GPS must be true??? No, the relativity claim about GPS needs to stand on far better logic than that.

::::::::: In fact, the few papers claiming relatitivy is confirmed by GPS, written by obscure physicists, overlooked the Newtonian effects on the clocks. If you think you can build a clock immune from Newtonian effects, then patent it immediately. Can't be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:49, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

<----

Please identify the calculations that predict a difference in time. Bayes has already shown that time in all inertial reference frames is equal and identified how he derived this statement, so there's obviously something we're missing. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:57, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Andy, if there is no paper saying that a Newtonian effect can explain the observed GPS time differences, then it is correct to say that relativity provides the only known explanation for those differences. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: No, we shouldn't accept the equivalent of "relative proof." Just because a flawed proof or claim is better than other flawed proofs or claims does not mean it is acceptable. Would any mathematician embrace a flawed proof because it is better than other flawed attempts to prove the same theorem? I don't think so. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:: If you don't want to call it a "relative proof", that's fine with me. I am just correcting errors. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:06, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::: Here are the facts:

:::*GPS satellite clocks have mechanisms to correct for frequency offsets caused by time dilation. I don't see how this can be disputed, unless you want to stubbornly deny that such devices exist, in which case you can claim that cars don't have engines.

:::: It hasn't been proven that the frequency offsets are due to "time dilation." Instead, you assume what you claim to prove. Your logic is circular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*Newtonian mechanics does not predict ANY time dilation because it regards time as absolute, even in accelerating frames. Again, I don't see how this can be reasonably disputed, outside of winning a Nobel Prize. There are no reputable sources that predict Newtonian time dilation because there is no Newtonian time dilation.

:::: No one said that Newtonian mechanics does predict time dilation. This is a strawman argument. What is true is that Newtonian mechanics effects the operation of clocks in accelerating frames.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*Relativity does predict time dilation. All reputable physicists (not just a few obscure ones) can attest to that.

:::: OK, this is true, but purely theoretical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*The predictions of relativity are in good agreement with the frequency offsets on GPS satellite clocks. Several papers on the topic have been cited on this page.

:::: A few papers by obscure physicists have made this claim, but these papers raise questions like disagreements among relativists and a failure to address Newtonian effects on the clocks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::If you want to flat-out deny the above, then I guess I shouldn't waste my time trying to improve the article. I'll also point out that some significant creationist ideas depend on relativity to explain the starlight problem (God creating the Earth inside a massive gravitational field), so it's not an amoral atheist conspiracy.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:57, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: Relativists love to exaggerate relativity. Earlier, someone here claimed (based on what he had been taught by relativists) that only relativity predicts the bending of light from gravity. Wrong again. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

<---

You state, ''"No one said that Newtonian mechanics does predict time dilation...What is true is that Newtonian mechanics effects [sic] the operation of clocks in accelerating frames."'' Those sentences are contradictory. Newtonian mechanics does NOT predict any difference in the operation of clocks. Furthermore, what do the frequency offsets do if they don't compensate for time dilation?? Are they decorative?? Clock frequencies have to be adjusted ''because the clocks run at different rates''. And whatever extrapolations "relativists" come up with have nothing to do with the science.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:36, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that's correct. If you wanted to make an anti-relativity statement, I think that here is the most that you could say correctly is this:

* GPS does not prove relativity, in the sense that no experiment ever proves a theory. There is always the possibility that someone will come along later with a better explanation.

* Being able to calculate the relativistic corrections is not truly essential to making GPS work. Nowadays the satellite clocks are synchronized so frequently that predicting the clock drift is not necessary. If relativity were never discovered, then the satellite corrections could be made without anyone realizing that the system was just adding relativistic corrections. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:02, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::RSchlafly, although I disagree with your decision to remove some of the discussion here, I agree with your position. My only issue is that your second bullet still leaves open the question of why the clocks drift, or why they need to be synchronized often, and implies that we don't have a good explanation. However, we do have a pretty good explanation--relativity can predict such discrepancy to high precision. If GPS is mentioned in the article, I would prefer that we insert language similar to "Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth. Currently, relativity provides the best explanation for such adjustments (insert refs)" Does that sound any better? I'm open other suggestions.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 16:28, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't know what you mean about my "decision to remove some of the discussion here". What discussion did I remove? I did want to remove the 1996 quote because it is out-of-date and out-of-context. Anyway, I inserted your proposed 2 sentences. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:01, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: I was referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ATheory_of_relativity&diff=259155&oldid=259114 this edit]. Anyway, not that big of a deal now; I appreciate your attempt to fix the article, although those attempts have now been effectively neutered [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=next&oldid=259513] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=next&oldid=259528]. The GPS section has now grown so large that it may now detract from learning about relativity. I wonder if it is not better placed on the GPS article rather than this one.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 12:19, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: Sorry, I apparently accidentally lost some comments. I just tried to restore them. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:53, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

==Skepticism==
Edits like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=259513&oldid=259511 this one] made in the last few days are again consistent with the overall skepticism for relativity present in the article. The physicist in question is indeed involved in research into alternatives to general relativity. He appears to support [http://ecolloq.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/2001-Spring/announce.alley.html Yilmaz theory], which is not especially well-regarded by the scientific community [http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/ASGRG/ACGRG1/fackerell.html] [http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504050]. Even if it turned out to be an improvement on GR, it would still predict time dilation and other relativity-esque things, so I don't see what would be gained by denying all of GR but then embracing Yilmaz theory. GR is constantly being tested because a.) it is in conflict with quantum mechanics and b.) it is the current gold standard for theories of gravitation, and the limits of current gold standards are where new physics lie. Physicists I know who are doing research on alternative theories of gravitation teach classes on relativity, and emphasize its success; they aren't "skeptics" who want to throw it in the trash. Improvements on GR are likely to include GR as an approximation, as Newtonian mechanics is an approximation to GR.

Relativity is the current best idea we have to explain a lot of things and works to within experimental uncertainty for all tests of it performed so far. This article should reflect that success instead of embarking on a misguided ideological quest to discredit it in favor of Newtonian mechanics, which is known to have limits. And what I've said applies to GR; SR is even more established. Aschlafly, your problem with relativity appears to be that it is called "relativity" which you believe allows it to somehow be associated with moral relativism. Would your objections still hold if it were named "Reference Frame Theory"? Please remove the skeptical claims, as their inclusion implies willful ignorance to anyone who visits this page.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:37, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, we're factual on this site. Exaggerations about the theory of relativity or anything else are not allowed here. For example, one editor here claimed that relativity predicts the bending of light but that Newtonian mechanics does not. That is false. Some of the claims here about GPS using relativity have also been false. This isn't allowed in a credible encyclopedia. Go to Wikipedia if you want to stretch or distort the truth to suit your personal views about what the facts should be. Here we state what the facts are.

: Similarly, we don't delete or censor factual scientific information here. You recently deleted factual information without justification, and your deletion has been reverted. Please abide by our [[rules]]. Thank you and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:21, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Andy, I don't get the point of your edits. Under Ostensible Paradoxes, you have a 2001 article that says "If confirmed, the finding could mean ...". That was 6 years ago. Was it confirmed, or not? The following results are somewhat interesting, but obscure. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:14, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

== Nasa on spacecraft and relativity ==

Three of the items found with a quick search:
* Cassini refines measurements of general relativity with its trip around the sun [http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm]
* Voyager 1's slingshot around Saturn showed frequency shifts in agreement with relativity [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html]
* Gravity Probe B is a satellite launched and demonstrates frame dragging and geodetic warping of space [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html][http://einstein.stanford.edu/]
Given these examples, I believe the passage recently added:
:In addition to GPS discussed above, NASA has launched numerous space probes and missions, but none of them have ever used the theory of relativity in their timing mechanisms even though they experience much weaker gravitational fields in space.
is inappropriate and misleading. Even if the space craft where not ''designed'' with relativity in mind (the Gravity Probe B certainly was designed with it in mind), Voyager and Cassini and others demonstrated the effects of relativity as they dipped into gravity wells and out of them with the frequency of the signal being sent to Earth. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 12:47, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:: The current statement is correct in the entry and we do not delete correct, educational information here. You cite some interesting articles which could also be added if they are given detail and explanation suitable for a high-quality encyclopedia. I took a quick look at your articles and they seem to be designed for public consumption, lacking satisfactory detail of a scientific level. But feel free to add a paragraph '''without exaggeration''' that explains clearly what you think these experiments demonstrate. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The [[libera]] edits and censorship have been reverted. This is not [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 17 December 2007 (EST)

I'm not trying to be liberal or censor, but I doubt anyone thought any less of Dicke due to his support of Brans-Dicke - which is merely the addition of a scalar field to the tensor of GR - in fact, all of einsteinan GR is viable under Brans-Dicke - if the scalar field is set to null - the difference is the allowable effect of long-distance large masses that is not rsquared. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 15:16, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:Um... this is supposed to be targetted towards high school students. Your really doing nothing but babbling to me, because I don't understand what you're talking about. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 20:04, 17 December 2007 (EST)

I made a change that was first related. Even by the methods that science uses to deny christian beliefs they both fail. Putting it that way is a little stronger, as well as more accurate. It's kind of hard to say that "string theory" has been a failure when just about every physicist who wants to work these days needs to learn and be productive in it. It's just entirely "thought experiments" though, and quirking math to make it fit. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 20:02, 17 December 2007 (EST)

If this article is directed at high school students, Dicke would not be mentioned, as his contribution to the theory of relativity was limited. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 09:11, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:His importance to this article for Conservapedia is that he believed in something other than General Relativity, and although very intelligent, never received a Nobel Prize for any of his findings. The point being made is that if you disagree with GR, that you won't get a Nobel Prize. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:13, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Why you would disagree with GR is beyond me, but… --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 14:16, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Whether or not I disagree with GR is irrelevant. This wiki has a goal and purpose, and you need speak toward that audience. The intention of this article is to question and critique GR, not to assume that it is automatically true. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:21, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::You realize that what [[User:PhysicsNut|PhysicsNut]] was explaining - as I understood it - was that Dicke ''didn't'' really believe in something other than General Relativity? All that "babbling" was describing why Brans-Dicke theory differs little from GR (PhysicsNut, feel free to correct me on this). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:19, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::: That's correct. Brans-Dicke with Omega approaching infinity is General Relativity per Einstein. At no point did Dicke doubt that matter bent space-time. He merely postulated that there was another effect of matter that was not an r-squared effect. He didn't win the Nobel because someone else heard the CBR first - Dicke was just the one who realized it was proof-positive of the Big Bang. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 16:44, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::: It's bias to insist on describing theories that compete with relativity in terms of relativity. Also, the explanation for why Dicke, one of the finest physicists of the 20th century responsible for ''multiple breakthroughs'', did not win a [[Nobel Prize]] is not as plausible as the reason given.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Says who? Don't we need "authoritive sources for all the changes you want to make," or is your insinuation that Professor Dicke (who proved the Big Bang as his most notable breakthrough) was a young-earth creationist enough? [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 20:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)

This article is an embarrassment. Whatever - this project is obviously doomed. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 21:05, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Your attitude is completely unhelpful. You should not continue to post. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:21, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Maybe so, Puellanivis, but still, try not to write off editors so quickly! [[User:Physicsnut|Phyiscsnut]] is only new here, and may not have understood how [[Conservapedia]] differs from [[Wikipedia]] or other [[MSM]] outlets. Many editors have moved beyond initial misunderstandings to find ways to contribute positively to Conservapedia, despite ideological differences - so you needn't necessarily drive them off right away. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:06, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::: I don't why there are so many edits to the content page here, and I'll have to sort through them again. Relativity is a magnet for [[liberal bias]], but we're not going to allow such bias here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:21, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::Feebasfactor, your point is very well received. I definitely agree with your point. But people will not get anywhere without discussing and considering. If they express an attitude that this site will never be helpful if it rejects their viewpoint, then that's just silly. Aschlafly, I believe I had cleared it up fairly well with my last revert, but please feel free to review it. I think it attracts so much liberal bias, because they feel like it's home turf, or something, and get mad when anyone insults it. I suppose it's kind of the same thing as the liberals insulting the Bible. It just evokes such a strong response, that liberals get stupid (more so) and don't stop think and consider. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 00:27, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::: Insult relativity all you want. Insult the memory of Robert Dicke and you can rot. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 20:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Physicsnut, you're making no sense. Please don't pollute our pages with namecalling nonsense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:11, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Nobel Prize Contradiction ==

In the beginning of the section Evidence for Relativity you state that, "There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity." This is part of your reasoning as to why GR is not scientifically viable, yet in the section Philosophical Impact of Relativity you state that Robert Dicke is still a an accomplished physician despite his never being awarded any Nobel Prizes. Now it seems to me that if you wish to still credit Robert Dicke as an accomplished physician, which is certainly true, then it would seem only fair to leave out the comment about GR never gaining Nobel recognition. At least not in the context of trying to discredit it. You can't have it both ways. Either it's possible to be reliable and not gain Nobel recognition, or not gaining Nobel recognition speaks to the validity of the subject. One or the other; can't be both. --[[User:Aralith|Aralith]]

: Your logic is defective, because Robert Dicke (physicist, not a physician) was slighted due to bias ''in favor of the theory of relativity''. That bias obviously does not explain the lack of Nobel Prizes for relativity. It's the lack of evidence that is the reason there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:: If the Theory of Relativity is so commonly accepted among physicists (meant to write that in the last post but the wrong word came out of my fingers) how could it be that the Theory of Relativity hasn't gained Nobel recognition, which is voted on by a commitee made up of the same scientists who support said theory unless it is possible for a subject (person, theory, etc.) to be extremely important but not Nobel Prize worthy? In which case it makes perfect logical sense that both Dicke and GR could be a great person/theory respectively but not gain recognition from the Nobel committee.

== legal right to abortion ==

"For example, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama helped publish an article by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to abortion.[39]"

Unfortunately there is no link to the article in question. It would interest me much what the right to abortion has to do with the alleged curvature of space. Either the space is curved, or it isn't. Neither of both could ever affect my moral convictions.

{{unsigned|Harald}}

:This entire section is ridiculous and irrelevant. Clearly the curvature of spacetime was being referred to as a metaphor. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]]

::Please rewrite the section and/or move text to other articles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Where is the reference to Obama helping publish the article? The current reference points to the JSTOR article abstract, which does not mention Obama's involvement whatsoever. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 15:33, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

== Paradoxes? Nobel Prize? ==

Why are these things labeled as paradoxes? The rule is the speed of light IN A VACUUM is constant WITH RESPECT TO INERTIAL FRAME. The variability of c (the speed of light) through a medium is accepted and irrelevant as far as SR is concerned. That is due to the absorption and reemission of photons by atoms as light hits travels through glass (or air or fiber optics cable). Similarly, relativity neither prohibits nor "encourages" a c that varies with the age of the universe. Indeed, the nature of the constant is still a mystery, and it may indeed be dependent on some factors we are unaware of.

If anyone is confused, shoot me an email and I'll either give you a full explanation or point you in the direction of a good resource.

Also, there are several reasons Einstein never received a Nobel Prize for relativity:

-he recieved a prize for the photoelectric effect,which has laid the framework for quantum mechanics (arguably just as important). They may have had qualms over giving two to the same person (they haven't done it yet).

-initially, there was some resistance against it by the old guard of physicists who had wasted their lives pursuing the alternative (and stupid) ether explanation for the nature of c.

-the Nobel committee favors ideas that have practical applications (hence no prize for mathematics), and at the time relativity had none.

-as to why they haven't given him one recently...well, Einstein's dead, and they don't give prizes posthumously. (A sticking point, since the full significance of a theory might only be fully realized generations after its inception).

So saying the Nobel prize hasn't recognized Einstein for relativity is misleading and irrelevant.

And now I'm curious. This article seems to have an anti-relativity bias. Why is relativity unAmerican or unChristian (besides the fact that Einstein was a German Jew)?

And what's up with the Obama reference? I don't think God asks politicians (liberal or conservative) for their opinions when he establishes His natural law. (unsigned by User:QED)

:I looked at your edits for this and found them to be wanting. The information on the Nobel committee is accurate. It's a small part of the article and no specific conclusions are stated from it. I can see why you would believe this is not a slight on relatively, nevertheless it is true as written. In the absense of any counter evidence, such as writings by the Nobel committee explaining this, it should be allowed to stand. Your other point is, temporarily, out of bounds. You may believe that relativity allows for faster than light movement 'virtually', but unless you have a source, it's not going to be included. In other words your conjecture is not going to trump a source that appears to take a neutral position.

:Lastly, do not try to play the minority card again. You aren't Johnny Cochran. The article on Einstein is extensive and written with great respect. I'm assuming you could already have checked it up to see the view on him at CP. Consider this to be your one and only warning in this area. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:38, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:: User: Learn together's analysis is superb. The polemic comments above by QED seem to have little relation to the actual entry here, or to science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

== Questions ==

The introduction refers to "a principle which led to the first theory", but as far as I can see, there's no further reference to or explanation of this. What is this referring to?

It's been asked a couple of times above, but not answered as far as I can see: What relevance does Obama's comment have in this article?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:54, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: The reference to "principle" should be to postulates. That's been fixed. The reference to Obama is explained enough, don't you think? It describes political support for the theory, and use (or misuse) of it for political gain.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:45, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
:: It hasn't been explained on this talk page at all. Harald asked the question above, Kristkrispies added a criticism, and the only reply was from Ed Poor suggesting the section be rewritten. QED asked about it also, and the reply didn't address that point.
:: However, rereading the footnote (or did I miss that before?), I can see a very tenuous connection, but not one that warrants it being included in this article. I suggest it be removed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:44, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, I'm assuming you're referring to the Obama reference. The heading explains it. Political insights are a key part of this site, and explaining [[political benefit]] to something is essential to understanding why it is emphasized and/or misrepresented. The [[theory of relativity]] is used, or misused, to advance [[liberal]] goals, and the Obama reference is an important illustration of that. Would you like to see more examples?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Yes, I was referring to the Obama reference. Not, it's actually the opposite of the heading, because it is (mis)using relativity (physics) to support something political, not political support of relativity which is what the heading refers to. And as such, it's only of marginal if any real relevance to an article about relativity. I guess, though, I can see ''some'' point in it. That is, it's like an article about [[comet]]s mentioning that there was a musical group named [[The Comets]]; a bit of barely-related trivia, but the sort of thing that Wikipedia and Conservapedia sometimes do (often under the heading of "cultural references"). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

== My edits ==
I added a bit more information in the introduction to general relativity, because, as written, the article didn't really explain what the idea behind general relativity was. I don't think the edit is perfect, so people are free to tweak it or add more.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:12, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I also deleted "at infinite speed" from the sentence that said in classical physics light travels at infinite speed in a straight line. In classical physics, light still travels at c (approx 300,000 km/s), as Maxwell or any book on electrodynamics can tell you. In fact, it was this very observation that got people all caught up in the ether theory, because Maxwell's equations made direct reference to the speed of light. Consequently, people assumed that the equations had to be referring to the speed of light with respect to some fixed medium, i.e., the ether. Of course, we all know how well that theory worked out.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:21, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I removed the sentence about the Nobel prize committee not recognizing SR/GR in the evidence for SR/GR section. Mostly, the sentence just seems out of place with the rest of the section. Also, the reference provided was just a link to the Nobel committee homepage.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:49, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I removed the last section: time dilation and creation science. If we start including every crackpot scientific theory ever proposed, this page is going to become enormous.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 14:00, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:I see you are not around to respond, but including the latest creationary thinking doesn't mean that crackpot theories will be included. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== New Edits, Proposed edits ==
This article needs some major work, and I don't mind diving in and trying to correct some things. I added something on the equivalence principle because the existing information about general relativity was mostly mathematical with no physical insight. I'll try to clean up more when I have more time. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I also corrected a mistake about force defined in special relativity. The way it was written it wasn't defining a vector. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Further, I would really like to clean up the experimental evidence section, but there appears to be some contention regarding GPS, so I thought I'd discuss it with other editors here. The GPS definately DOES include some relativistic corrections. Consider the 1996 paper referenced in the article, on page 193 of the journal, page 5 of the article the authors tell us "The GPS operational control system corrects the pseudoranges measured by its monitor stations for the sum of the gravitational and velocity effects." What the article discusses is that the corrections are merely the average corrections, not the full specific velocity/gravitational effects. The article is being used misleadingly to make an unsupported claim. If no one objects in a day or two, I'll make the changes. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I'd also like to remove the stress on Dicke's theory, as Dicke's theory is basically just an extension of GR. Dicke's theory is still a metric theory of gravity involving curved space time, so most of the discussion of GR should be applicable to Dicke's theory. Dicke's theory should probably be included in another article. Also, the contention that Dicke didn't get a nobel because he proposed an alternative theory needs some supporting information or a citation or I think it should be removed. Again, if no one objects, I'll make the change. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I also plan, given time, to give a more "layman" style description of GR following my brief discussion on the equivalence principle. For students, diving straight into tensors, geodesics and field equations will most likely obscure the physics. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

== Einstein's Cross/Ring and Gravitational Lensing==
I think it'd useful to have a picture of gravitational lensing in the proof section. As I'm not an admin, I can't upload it. There's the picture found on wikipedia which is known as "Einstein's Cross," but there are plenty of other examples of gravitational lensing that can be found in the public domain: [http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/search.php?words=lens&x=0&y=0&method=and&format=normal&sort=score&config=picturealbum&restrict=entire_collection%2Fpr&exclude=]. I suggest picking a nice looking one and displaying it. I'm personally partial to the double ring found here: [http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire_collection/pr2008004a/]. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 20:43, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

: The images don't add anything new of substantive value. What's really needed here is more explanation about whether twice as much bending of light by relativity is really predicted and shown, compared to the prediction of bending of light by Newton's theory. Most people are misled to think that Newton's theory does not predict the bending of light, when it does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:53, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I tried to edit, read it over, reverted it as it wasn't making sense. However, I think there should be something about photons being able to move at speeds other than c in the bit about Newtonian lensing. My phrasing was really poor, thus the self-revert. I may take another crack at this later when I can get the words right.--[[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 21:22, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

::: The bending of light in Newtonian physics is not a trivial issue. The mass can approach zero and it still bends, for example. How much it bends is debatable, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:35, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Do you think it'd be a good idea to create a page about the bending of light under Newtonian Dynamics? Most people don't know about this and I think an explanation that's less technical than the linked source might help. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 15:07, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== Science And Math Facts That Prove Einstein's Blatant Error In His Relativity Theory ==
With all due respect, but with regard to truth in real science, my writing here is to provide undeniable mathematical and science fact that special relativity is false science.
For information this math proof was written on Wikipedia about two years ago and they squelched the truth in science by a vote of 8 to 1, and even though a supposed expert in relativity wrote that the math proofs did in fact prove relativity to be totally wrong, in the end he chose to live a lie and to squelch the truth.
In the end you can also squelch truth in real science by determining that truth by the undeniable science and math facts written here or to live according to truth. Either is your choice but squelching will only suppress science facts and true science. So I am going to write the science and math that shows undeniable truth and you can decide. [[User:StevenCrum|StevenCrum]] 16:31, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

:A section on "critiques of Einsteinian relativity" would be good. Do you remember the name of the expert? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:58, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

== More regarding the criticism of LIGO ==

As a student of physics, I feel myself almost obliged to add something to the discussion regarding LIGO, particularly as I work for a Professor that is part of the LIGO collaboration and have actually attended scientific conferences where the subject is addressed (though to be fair my work with her specifically deals with another one of her collaborations, Borexino).

First, as mentioned in previous discussion, it is indeed true that it was understood that LIGO, like many scientific undertakings, would need to be refined and calibrated before reaching its design sensitivity. To claim the LIGO is a failure before it has reached its design sensitivity is just as ridiculous and ignorant as criticizing any other tool or piece of equipment for not functioning before it is properly calibrated. It isn't like the LIGO collaboration is trying to pull any fast ones on anyone by being secretive about this - just do a Google search for LIGO to bring up their web page, where they discuss the details of this matter.

Secondly, it is true that the "success" of the experiment cannot be known prior to its being conducted, but if it could, what would be the point in conducting the experiment in the first place? Experimentation is a necessary aspect of science because scientific investigation fundamentally deals with the discovery of knowledge not previously known to us, and because it is not known to us, even its ultimate usefulness cannot be known a priori. The rate of observed events under the initial design sensitivity is predicted to be very low, so it would not be very surprising if we did not observe anything until advanced LIGO debuts. Even still, there is a fundamental uncertainty in the rate of events that will be seen. Maxwell was once asked what the usefulness of electromagnetism could ever be, to which he replied "What good is a newborn baby?" I do not believe I need to highlight the usefulness of electromagnetism in the modern world.

Which brings me to my third point, which is the enormous significance LIGO holds in terms of scientific potential. If LIGO is successful, it will revolutionize modern day astronomy by providing a new method for detecting cosmological phenomena. Gravitational radiation would offer another method of "imaging" the heavens, independent of electromagnetic radiation. To say that LIGO would have limited scientific benefit would be a serious rebuke to the field of astronomy in general. Optical astronomy would be coupled with gravitational astronomy as a valuable check on astronomical results attained by optical methods alone. But of course, the fundamental uncertainty we have as to what the observed rate of events will be reflects the fact that we do not know with complete certainty what cosmological objects exist, hence the very reason that LIGO would be useful.

Even more revolutionary would be if LIGO failed to detect gravitational waves. If you only assume the existence of a gravitational field, and that disturbances in that field cannot propagate faster than the speed of light, then by the very definition of wavelike phenomena, you have gravitational waves. Gravitational radiation is a prediction of General Relativity, and as such, were it to be disproved, it would falsify a prediction of a scientific theory. To say that this is not valuable would be to suggest that, for example, Michelson's experiments in search of the aether were not valuable, whereas in reality they gave supporting evidence to the idea that there is indeed no aether. At the very least, the experiment should be able to place certain restrictions on the rate of observed events. If gravitational radiation were not found, and this represented a serious contradiction with the rate of events predicted, it would be ABSOLUTELY ENORMOUS in terms of scientific relevance, and I cannot stress that enough. Something huge, somewhere in our understanding of the world, would have to be revised, be it the idea of the gravitational field, causality itself, etc. As a practicing scientist, I would almost hope that LIGO fails to see gravitational radiation, just because the scientific implications would be so unimaginably radical and weird, and force us to completely reexamine how we perceive the universe. But this subject could be argued until it reaches the realm of some very deep scientific philosophy - scientific theory is generally not viewed as being "completely true" or "completely wrong," but as a method of predicting physical phenomena, which eventually is replaced with a more accurate theory. Newtonian mechanics is not so much wrong, as it is not a good enough approximation in certain specific applications. If you want a metaphor, think about scientific progress as continuing to improve our Taylor expansion of the universe.

Though I suspect given the general tone of this article, somehow the death of GR would also please most of the contributors to this encyclopedia, as if General Relativity, a scientific theory, is somehow inherently a "liberal" idea. I'm sure that when Einstein formulated it, he envisioned it being used by Barack Obama to support a woman's legal right to terminate her pregnancy. Though, I hope for the sake of those contributors that General Relativity is either disproved, or is shown to be a "conservative" idea, because if it does adequately describe our universe, is a "liberal" idea, and God created the universe, then either God is a liberal, or he has a very weird sense of humo(u)r.

Just to get this nonsense out of the way now, I'm a registered independent. I vote, based on all of the relevant information I have been able to attain via what I believe to be credible sources, for whoever I honestly believe will be able to fulfill the duties of the office they seek, and I don't think anyone can ask any more of me than that. If any of this leads some of you to believe that I am incapable of discussing the theory of General Relativity, then I surely and sincerely have nothing but pity for you. --kfratus

: What are you talking about? The article has only one simple sentence about LIGO. Is that sentence correct or not? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:13, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

:: First, if you'll take a closer look at the talk page, you'll notice that there has been a good amount of discussion of the usefulness of LIGO, and that was what I was principally referencing. Secondly, the article in reality contains three sentences that in some way reference LIGO, albeit only one of them by name. The last sentence specifically mentions LIGO, the second sentence is clearly directly referencing LIGO without naming it, and the first claims that research involving the theory of relativity receives a disproportionate amount of funding. I would regard the first of those sentences as a matter of scientific opinion, which I addressed in my comments by pointing out how much impact LIGO could have on the entire astronomy community. The second and third sentences may not be incorrect, so much as they are worded as half truths. LIGO has been unsuccessful, or has failed, to detect graitational waves so far. To assert that LIGO has been unsuccessful in general would be entirely untrue, and is completely dependent on your notion of the "success" of the experiment, which I also addressed - LIGO has indeed managed to reach its target sensitivity, and whether or not they manage to detect gravitational waves, their results will still have a huge impact on the field of physics, which I would consider a successful experiment. --kfratus

:::Hopefully, when LIGO disproves so-called "[http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=gravity+waves gravity waves]", a relativist working on the project will be honest enough to call LIGO what it is. In this way, LIGO may end up being a very, very expensive way of '''disproving''' relativity, once and for all.
:::I doubt it, though, with all that grant money on the line. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 23:35, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: Maybe it is unfair to say that LIGO has been unsuccessful. But what about Gravity Probe B? That experiment seemed like a big expensive flop to me. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:26, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::I just want to make sure that the people here criticizing LIGO understand that the frequency range of the gravitational waves it was built to detect predict a variations in spacetime by only a factor of 10^-21. LIGO's longest vacuum tubes are 4km long. So physicists are attempting to measure a change in length approximately 1/2500th the diameter of an atomic nucleus.

:::::: Yes, that is why some people predicted that LIGO would fail. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

And to the poster who linked to youtube video of "gravity waves". Those ARE NOT gravity waves. Those are clouds.

:::::::As a passer-by stumbling upon your conversation, I never really meant to end up leaving this many posts, and I apologize if I'm violating your 90/10 rule, or anything like that. But I just wanted to clarify something that I see come up very often. I frequently run into people who have this impression that all scientists are members of some secret organization that is trying to hold knowledge from the public, and that they have their own personal reasons for trying to manipulate the body of scientific knowledge. While I cannot speak for all scientists, any of the ones that I have ever met (myself included), would be absolutely more than happy to welcome more people to our field of study. Most physicists I have met enjoy what they do, and would be very willing to pass their knowledge onto others (and one would have to admit that if we were somehow manipulating the entire body of public knowledge, we'd have to be doing a pretty good job of keeping every single scientist in the entire world quiet about the real truth - not very practical). And with respect to the comments made by BHarlan, I can assure you that most scientists would actually LOVE to disprove general relativity. In many cases, scientists are not famous because they confirm the prediction of a theory, but because they disprove one, thereby radically changing what we know about the world around us. The reason Einstein was so famous was because he disproved the Newtonian picture of the universe, not because he confirmed some prediction of it. But this is just like any other profession - think about it, if a rival of yours was successful in some way, wouldn't you be just dieing to somehow prove them wrong and rub it in their face? Scientists are people too, subject to the same personality traits as everyone else. This is why most physicists feel relatively comfortable with the scientific process - they know that if something is proposed as a theory, there will be a thousand people just itching to prove it wrong, thereby stealing the limelight for themselves. I think that if I ever found a way to disprove relativity, I'd practically have a heart attack out of excitement (and you can be sure I'd get a Nobel prize for it, too). In fact, it is already a well known fact that GR must be wrong at at least some level, because as it is formulated now, it's not compatible with some of the basic tenets of quantum mechanics. Though, I'm still pretty sure we'll see gravity waves, if you want my opinion. Gravity waves are predicted by ideas much more fundamental than GR (aka, the finite speed of light), and so GR could be be wrong, and we could still have gravity waves - as long as you define the propagating influence of gravity as a "wave," and assume that information can't travel faster than the speed of light, then there you have it, really. And with respect to the video of the clouds, those are actually "gravity waves," but of a different sort. The term comes from how the Earth's gravitational field effects atmospheric conditions. So it is the same term for two very different things, which unfortunately may lead to some confusion for some people. And with respect to Gravity Probe B, I admit that I do not know as much about that experiment, and off the top of my head would not really be able to debate it. Though if I remember correctly its data analysis is scheduled to continue into 2010, so I would hesitate to say anything until then (other than the fact that in principle, I find its goals fairly relevant - if you really wanted to test the geometrical nature of GR, you should try to confirm/disprove one of its craziest, most non-intuitive predictions - aka, frame-dragging).

:::::::But I can assure you, I have met plenty of people who are very politically conservative, and believe in gravity waves. In fact, many deeply spiritual people believe that relativity is a sign of God's existence. The basic idea goes that if relativity were not true, there would have to be some preferred reference frame, which would have to be chosen somewhat arbitrarily. But how could a divine creator just make some arbitrary choice like that? Not very elegant, if you ask me. In fact, I have heard that some people actually cry when they finally understand GR, because of what an elegant theory it is. If you want to read more about ideas like that, I definitely suggest Brian Greene's book, "Fabric of the Cosmos." If you want my honest opinion, I have yet to come across anything in my study of physics that I believe is a serious threat to the existence of some intelligent creator. From what I can gather, most physicists don't even concern themselves with such an aim - if God exists, then he exists. Our goal is to study what we can see, and make useful predictions based on that. If it's all just a result of God, then so be it. The only result will be that we've come to know Him a little better through out study of the universe and its workings. --kfratus

:::::::: The article hardly says anything about gravity waves. Are you suggesting some change to the article? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:00, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

== General Questions ==

The article suggests that Newtonian physics somehow suggest the bending of light, which is impossible according to Newtonian physics. Since a photon has zero mass, it cannot be bent by the force as described by Newton.

* Huh? I thought it was Newton who '''discovered''' the bending of light, which occurs as light enters a [[prism]]. It is because the various frequencies of light bend by different amounts that we get the [[rainbox]] effect (see [[spectrum]]). Or I have I totally forgotten my [[high-school physics]] and [[history of science]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Next point, Newton's action-at-a-distance theory of gravity seems to be taken as fact. The idea that general relativity violates this is used as a point against it. Newton himself stated, and I quote:

"It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the
mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and
affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must do, if gravitation,
...., be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason, why I
desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should
be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act
upon another, at a distance through vacuum, without the mediation of
anything else, by and through their action and force may be conveyed
from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no
man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking,
can ever fall into it."

Therefor, even the founder of classical mechanics saw action-at-a-distance as problem, so how is it in any way evidence to contradict a well tested theory?

: Oh, ignoring phenomena such as quantum entanglement, are we? --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 22:57, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
:: Actually, no. The reason that a grand unified theory is necessary is because of the discrepancies of the quantum world and the macro world. Both have been tested, neither conclusively, but evidence is in their favor. All I am saying here is that you can't use this (logically) as a point to disqualify an entire theory. Especially when you use this point when referencing a person (Newton) who had a problem with it.

::: Kindly use the signature button (10th from the left above) to "sign" your comments, so we can tell who's saying what.

::: Newton assumed nothing; he "feigned no hypotheses." Accordingly, he didn't have "a problem with it." It was his peers who could not accept it. Newton's quote above does not question "action at a distance," but is commenting on the nature of matter.

::: Many still refuse to accept action at a distance (and non-locality), as your own viewpoints demonstrate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
:::: Still refuse? As one of your relatives pointed out, there is some support for it, such as quantum entanglement, but on a large scale (say larger than the what is it now, 1 km?) past where quantum entanglement has been proven, there is no proof or any proof to suggest it should be true. And, I'm sorry, but I have to say. Don't assign my viewpoints to me sir. I will decide what I think based on fact. What I form as opinion, I will state as such. I don't understand how people can read this article with any knowledge of physics and agree with it. None of my professors, mentors, or scientists that I have met would support such statements. The fact that you are doing so proves the disgusting and twisted lengths that some people will go to in order to make established fact comply with their own super-conservative beliefs. It is people like yourselves that are ruining the republican party and make me scared for the future of America.--[[User:RobertSJ|RobertSJ]] 23:22, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

::::: So even though non-locality and action at a distance have been fully proven in laboratory experiments, you claim "there is no proof or any proof to suggest it should be true" ''beyond a certain distance''. Surely you don't think there is one set of laws for less than an arbitrary distance, and another set of laws for larger than an arbitrary distance. No, the real problem here is that some people, perhaps including yourself, do not and will not accept action at a distance regardless of the proof.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Next point, several "obscure physicists" is not the same as almost the entire community of physicists (which is the actual truth here.) Gravitational redshift perfectly explains the way that signals between earth and GPS satellites are different in time. That is how current GPS positions are calculated.

You mention LIGO at the very end and gravity waves as well. There is no prior mention. The prior mentions should explain what gravity waves are, why they are so weak, why they can probably only be detected from very massive binary systems, and why even when these massive binary systems are found the radiation should be so weak that the immense precision of LIGO and LISA are required.

Just some points on things that are not accurate or need to be clarified in order to not leave the reader with a false interpretation of scientific fact.

:Also edit, I am a physics major attending a well-respected and also conservative school (Vanderbilt). I have conducted research in physics at a national lab (ORNL), and like to keep up on this kind of thing. I am a moderate but conservative leaning voter.--[[User:RobertSJ|RobertSJ]] 23:22, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I responded in greater detail above, but let me just add that not everything you've learned is true, and not everything your professors state is true either. Hopefully you'll admit at least that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

: Photons have zero rest mass, but they are not at rest. A reference is given for the deflection of light as predicted by relativity theory. So the article seems to be correct about the bending of light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:41, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

::I wish that critics of CP would help us write [[basic physics]] articles instead of trying to "prove us wrong". Please help me finish the "[[bending of light]]" article, in accordance with what we all agree about Newton's discoveries many decades ago. Then we can discuss how to present [[quantum physics]], okay? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:04, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

== Non-Locality and Quantum Field Theory ==

There is no action at a distance, nor non-locality, in quantum mechanics nor field theory. None. You're confusing two different subjects.

First, action at a distance: True, in Newton's gravity, there is action at a distance. But this is totally different from anything to be found in QM or field theory, which have no action at a distance. All Hamiltonians in the standard models of field theory (QED, electroweak, QCD) are strictly local Hamiltonians. Forces are exerted by passing virtual bosons back and forth in space, like footballs. Interactions (like electron/photon, then photon/electron) are all 100% local.

The fact that Newton's theory assumed action at a distance (without proof) does not mean that ALL theories require action at a distance. Why should that follow? Why should modern theories be limited by Newton's unproved assumptions? Quantum field theory is immensely more accurate, measured objectively, than Newton's gravity force ever was. QED (with special relativity built in) predicted the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron accurate to one part in a TRILLION. Newton's theory was never even close to that level of accuracy! Newton could never accurately compute the orbit of Mercury or gravitational lensing to one part in a trillion! Or billion. By objective criteria, field theory is more accurate than Newton.

Second, non-locality: non-locality is not the same as action at a distance. Action at a distance requires exertion of a FORCE. Nothing in QM is in fact non-local. The only thing non-local about QM is the Copenhagen interpretation of wavefunction collapse, which is not a part of the equations, but a way of visualizing the effect of observation a QM system.

You have mentioned quantum entanglement as a supposed example of non-locality. Entanglement, and phenomena like quantum teleportation, do not exert FORCES, so they are not actiona at a distance! Further, quantum entanglement can never be used to transmit information faster than the speed of light. Hence, there's no contradiction between QM and SR. Field theory has SR built in. There is no experiment, in quantum teleportation nor EPR paradox, Bell's inequality etc., that can possibly transmit information FTL. Describe one experiment, just one entanglement experiment, that can supposedly transmit info FTL. I dare you. Just one.

So what is this supposed "non-locality" then? The Copenhagen interpretation of QM says that the wavefunction should "collapse" (revert to a single eigenfunction) everywhere simultaneously when an observation is made. If this really happened, it would be a problem for SR, because in SR, simultaneity is relative to the observer. But, two problems. First, this supposed "collapse" can never be observed and can never be used to transmit info FTL. Second, the Copenhagen interpretation is deeply flawed because it never defined what an "observation" was. It is no longer the most popular interpretation; among physicists, the Many Worlds interpretation is more popular now, because it precisely defines what observation means, in terms of quantum decoherence, so MWI connects better to macroscopic thermodynamics.

If you want to (groan) argue the point, you can argue that Copenhagen and Many Worlds are both non-local, but so what? They're visualizations, not equations, and certainly not forces, nor "actions"!! When neither visualization scheme can be used to transmit info FTL, nor exert a force, this is no problem for SR at all!

The only big problem here is that field theory is incompatible with GR, not SR. True. Everybody knows this is the biggest problem in physics. No one knows whether the flaw is in GR, field theory, or both. However, either way, there is no problem between field theory and SR. Field theory has SR built in, and is (objectively measured) the most precise scientific theory in history. If you argue this, I'll swamp you with experimental proofs. [[User:Cuddlytakun|Cuddlytakun]] 15:53, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

:"Cuddlytakun", you've obviously made up your mind that [[action at a distance]] and [[non-locality]] must not exist. But all evidence is against your view. Would you support spending another billion dollars of taxpayer money looking for [[gravitons]] to support your view? I hope not.

:How about this: raise ''private'' capital for searching for gravitons to support your philosophy. Then we'll see how many really agree with you, rather than just going along for the ride.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:10, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

Au contrere mon frere, you made up your mind that action at a distance is the only type force possible. I have nowhere said action at a distance is impossible. I've said Newton never proved, could not prove, it was the ONLY possibility. I suppose it's possible for both to exist. In field theory this would mean a Hamiltonian that is part local and part non-local. Sometimes the idea is kicked around. Mathematically, non-local Hamiltonians are a pain in the ass to compute with, and counterintuitive, but theoretically possible.

Why have you decided that action at a distance is the only possibility? Just because Newton's theory assumed it without proof, this does not mean all forces in nature must likewise be action at a distance. Think about this: suppose you and I are ice-skating. I toss you a football. When I throw the ball, reaction force pushes me backward. When you catch it, the collision pushes you away from me. Basic repulsive force at a distance, composed of local pairwise interactions. All forces in the standard model (electrodynamic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear; that is electroweak and QCD) work that way. The footballs are virtual bosons of spin 1.

"All evidence is against your view"? What evidence? What are you talking about!? "Your view"? Hell of a dismissive thing to say. It's not "my view", it's the view of everybody in physics, including Weinberg and Wilczek. Do you even know the meaning of the quotes you lifted out of Wilczek and Weinberg's speeches!? Seriously, do you have any evidence in mind, any at all, or are you just blowing smoke?

So you drag funding issues into it. As you know, the Europeans paid for the Large Hadron Collider so all the geniuses are moving to Europe. The last smart person to leave America, please turn out the lights.

But don't dismiss field theory as "philosophy". You're playing word games because you can't back up your statements with facts. These are facts: with field theory, you can predict the experimental value of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron to one part in a trillion. Of the muon, to one part in a billion. You can compute the mass of protons and neutrons and mesons from first principles, a priori! Which is an inherently relativistic computation (m = E/c2, with E from local QCD.) The Z boson's existence and mass were predicted before its discovery via electroweak theory, which is an entirely local Hamiltonian. Newton's gravity could never compute anything to an accuracy of one part in a billion, or compute masses of particles a priori, or predict new particles before they're observed! Why do you call field theory philosophy, but Newton's theory is science? Explain the definition of "philosophy" you're using here. Word games!
[[User:Cuddlytakun|Cuddlytakun]] 23:55, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

: Your "word-to-substance ratio" is very high; you are likely a [[liberal]]. See point 2 in [[liberal style]].

:I beg you to open your mind and learn here, for your own sake. Look at how you refused to address my simple point. Instead you cling to your perception of what you think others believe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

== Proof ==

The proofs for relativity are both mathematical and physical, yet this article tries to say otherwise. If someone doesn't know them then can I please put them in without them being edited out within minutes?

--[[User:Unlikelyconvert|Unlikelyconvert]] 13:14, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

: You're not going to push anything that is false here. Make your very best edit first and let's see how that looks, before you spend a lot of time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:20, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

I haven't tried to push anything, I've made a few edits already, corrected a couple of scientific mistakes, and said this. Can you please open your mind for just 10 minutes and look at both sides of this debate? Look at the overwhelming consensus on relativity, and then I will look at any source you give me forwarding your viewpoint. As I've said in another talk page, I am willing to change my views if you can prove them.
--[[User:Unlikelyconvert|Unlikelyconvert]] 13:27, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

: My mind is open, and I've invited you to make your very best edit first. Or, alternatively, state it here. Keep your word-to-substance ratio low, however. See [[liberal style]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:30, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Looking above, many people have stated the mathematical proofs in their different forms, yet you dismissed most of them almost out of hand. And I am not a liberal in respect to your definition, I am the (in my experience) the more common kind, the kind who will accept evidence. And you don't seem that open minded, as when i offered to put in proofs you started by saying I was trying to spread falsehoods. Proof makes something true, not false.

--[[User:Unlikelyconvert|Unlikelyconvert]] 13:34, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

: I'm going to move on to more substantive edits. Your word-to-substance ratio has been very high.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

::I'm going to ban uc if he doesn't stop trying to make people change their minds. If he wants to provide information about a novel, unproven or untested theory he's welcome to do that. He can even write about a theory which we conservatives know is false, provided that he doesn't try to present it as '''valid'''.

::Our policy is to label advocacy as such. Say, for example, that Professor X asserts theory Y because of Z. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:22, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Quantum mechanics

2009-05-26T00:19:47Z

Lemonpeel:

I have reinstated the change that had been made by Ssandoval, regarding the removal of "first order kinetics". It's true that he was an obvious vandal in other pages (yes, I looked around). It's also true that calling it an "idiotic implication" was excessive, and that his next "sentence" had no verb and contained a reference to a "negative amount" that I can't figure out. However, the chemical concept of "first order kinetics" isn't applicable here. Not idiotic, but wrong nonetheless. First order kinetics refers to a reaction rate ''per unit volume'' being proportional to the ''concentration'' of the reactants. In radioactivity the rate depends only on the amount of material. The exponential decay nevertheless follows.

Please look before reverting. [[User:CScience|CScience]] 14:25, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

I deleted the jargon comment, although I do agree that it is jargon, and the comment is duly noted. Again, I wish to emphasize that the subject of quantum mechanics is inherently a college-level subject, and the language I used should be accessible to a student with a college level understanding of calculus and linear algebra. --[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 22:10, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Let's not undo things hastily without discussing them first. There were some good things there. Why do you want to remove them?--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 15:00, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

:I left an edit comment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:29, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

::I'm no genius, but it all made sense to me....[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 15:46, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

::The postulates section could maybe have some preface or qualifying sentences to make it a bit easier for people without a background in physics to understand, but I could understand the article just fine as it was. Even [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman Richard Feynman] said that nobody truly understood quantum mechanics; however just because a concept is confusing, counterintuitive, or requires some previous knowledge to be explained, does not mean it should removed or simplified. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 16:18, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I must take issue with the sentence: as a result of the wave nature of an electron, the position of the electron can never precisely be known. First of all, the more correct statement is that the position and momentum of an electron can never both be known with arbitrary precision. And this has nothing to do with the fact that an electron behaves like a wave. Rather, it results from the fact that the position and momentum operators do not commute with each other. For an example at the other end of the spectrum, the energy and spin-z operators DO commute with each other, and for this reason one can indeed simultaneously know the energy and spin of an electron.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 19:52, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, thank you for clarifying the point that the position and momentum of an electron can never both be known with arbitrary precision. This has been poorly stated in many places, and is really misleading. It's hard enough to understand physics; let's not make it any harder. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:34, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Hi, I'm new here, so I apologize if I'm doing this incorrectly. Should I propose edits on the talk page and then make them on the main page? There are some things stated on this subject on the front page that are incorrect (although not completely wrong), and I would like to correct that. I'm hoping to eventually help out in other subjects here, but for now will contribute to what I know best.

My first edit would be on the uncertainty position - it states that position and velocity can not both be simultaneously known to within arbitrary position. The current statement is about velocity only. For applications of quantum mechanics, I think we should talk about more than just radioactive decay - I would like to add a link on transistors, as they seem a far more relevant application of QM in people's daily lives. Also, radioactive decay is often thrown about in a cartoonish way without fully understanding it - which is why things like carbon dating done by evolutionists are so blindly accepted by the public, when the science to make a real measurement is actually quite complicated.
--[[User:CGriswald|CGriswald]] 12:51, 13 December 2008 (EST)

After a year, this page remains woefully incomplete. Perhaps discrediting the theory of relativity is a greater priority for the physics contributions at Conservapedia. To add a little actual content to this page, someone should write sections on the following topics: (1) The photo-electric effect. (2) The classical vs quantum understanding of black-body radiation. (3) The double-slit experiment. (4) The Stern-Gerlach experiment.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 20:19, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

Quantum mechanics

2009-05-25T23:51:24Z

Lemonpeel: /* Important contributors to quantum mechanics */ not sure why Dirac was left out

'''Quantum mechanics''' is the branch of [[physics]] that describes the behavior of systems on very small length and energy scales, such as those found in [[atom]]ic and subatomic interactions. It is essential for understanding certain concepts that [[classical physics]] cannot explain, such as the discrete nature of small-scale interactions, [[wave-particle duality]], the [[uncertainty principle]], and [[quantum entanglement]]. Quantum mechanics forms the basis for our understanding of many phenomena, including [[chemical reaction]]s and [[radioactive decay]], as well as all [[computer]]s and electronic devices today.

==History==
While the roots of quantum mechanics can be traced to experiments performed in the 19th century, the theory began to emerge when [[Max Planck]] proposed a "[[quantum hypothesis]]" to explain the energy spectrum of [[black body]] radiation in 1900. In 1905, [[Albert Einstein]] suggested that light is composed of discrete packets (''[[quanta]]'') in order to explain the [[photoelectric effect]]. A decade later, [[Niels Bohr]] proposed a model of the atom in which [[angular momentum]] is quantized. Eventually, the mathematical formalism that became known as quantum mechanics was developed in the 1920s and 1930s by [[John von Neumann]], [[Hermann Weyl]], and others, after [[Erwin Schrodinger]]'s discovery of wave mechanics and [[Werner Heisenberg]]'s discovery of matrix mechanics.

==The uncertainty principle==
As a result of the wave nature of a particle, the position of the particle can never be precisely known, given precise knowledge of its velocity. Whenever it is attempted to be measured, knowledge of the electron's [[velocity]] is lost. The inverse also applies. Hence, there is an inherent uncertainty that prevents precisely measuring both the position and the momentum simultaneously. This is known as the [[Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle]].

==Applications==
An important aspect of Quantum Mechanics is the predictions it makes about the [[radioactive decay]] of [[isotopes]]. Radioactive decay processes, controlled by the wave equations, are random events. A radioactive atom has a certain probability of decaying per unit time. As a result, the decay results in an exponential decrease in the amount of isotope remaining in a given sample as a function of time. The characteristic time required for 1/2 of the original amount of isotope to decay is known as the "half-life" and can vary from quadrillionths of a second to quintillions of years.

==See also==
===Concepts in quantum mechanics===
*[[Schrodinger equation]]
*[[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]]
*[[Momentum (operator)]]
===Important contributors to quantum mechanics===
*[[Erwin Schrodinger]]
*[[Werner Heisenberg]]
*[[Paul Dirac]]
*[[Niels Bohr]]
*[[Albert Einstein]]
*[[Max Planck]]

==External Links==
For an excellent discussion of quantum mechanics, see:
http://www.chemistry.ohio-state.edu/betha/qm/

*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/compton_effect.shtml The Compton Effect]

[[Category:Quantum Mechanics]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Black-Scholes

2009-05-24T05:19:14Z

Lemonpeel: /* The Black-Scholes Formula */ Corrected dumb mistake in black scholes diff eqn

== The Black-Scholes Model ==

The Black-Scholes model for a stock price assumes that the stock price follows geometric Brownian motion with constant drift and volatility. More precisely, if S(t) the stock price at time t, then

<math>
\frac{dS}{S} = \mu dt + \sigma dW(t)
</math>

where <math>W(t)</math> is a standard Weiner stochastic process.

Loosely speaking, this means that the return <math> \Delta S/S</math> of the stock over a very small time interval <math>\Delta t</math> can be viewed as a normal random variable with mean <math>\mu \Delta t</math> and variance <math>\sigma^2(\Delta t)^2 </math>. One can make this notion precise by invoking the concepts from the Ito calculus.

== The Black-Scholes Formula ==
The Black-Scholes pricing formula for a European call option can be deduced from the Black-Scholes model for a stock price. A European call option on a stock with strike price <math>K</math> and time to maturity <math>T</math> is a financial contract that gives the holder the option, but not the obligation, to purchase the stock for price <math>K</math> at time <math>T</math>. In other words, a European call on the stock S is a contract that provides a single pay-off of

<math>\hbox{max}(S(T)-K,0)</math>

at time <math>T</math>. Let <math>\Phi(t)</math> denote the fair value of this contract at time <math>t< T</math>. In deriving a formula for <math>\Phi(t)</math>, Black and Scholes' key insight was that by forming a portfolio with the exact right balance of <math>S</math> and the call option, one can completely eliminate risk associated to movements in the stock price <math>S</math>. Moreover, the resulting portfolio, being risk-free, has to grow at the risk free rate. These observations implied that the fair price of the call option had to satisfy the differential equation:

<math>\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial t}+r S\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial S}+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2 S^2 \frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial S^2} = r\Phi
</math>

where <math>r</math> is the continuously compounded risk-free interest rate, and <math>\sigma</math> is the volatility of the stock. The solution to this differential equation, satisfying the boundary condition

<math>\Phi(T) = \hbox{max}(S(T)-K,0)</math>

is given by:

<math>\Phi(t) = S(t)N(d_1) - Ke^{-r(T-t)}N(d_2)</math>

Here <math>N(x)</math> is the cumulative normal distribution function,

<math>d_1 = \frac{\log(S(t)/K)+(r+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2)(T-t)}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}</math>

and <math>d_2 = d_1-\sigma\sqrt{T}</math>

This is the famous Black-Scholes formula for the price of a European call. Note that all the variables except for <math>\sigma</math> can be observed in directly in the market at time <math>t</math>. The volatility, <math>\sigma</math> of the stock must be estimated using either statistical data, or inferred from the price of options being sold in the market.

[[Category:Economics]]

Black-Scholes

2009-05-23T03:33:02Z

Lemonpeel:

== The Black-Scholes Model ==

The Black-Scholes model for a stock price assumes that the stock price follows geometric Brownian motion with constant drift and volatility. More precisely, if S(t) the stock price at time t, then

<math>
\frac{dS}{S} = \mu dt + \sigma dW(t)
</math>

where <math>W(t)</math> is a standard Weiner stochastic process.

Loosely speaking, this means that the return <math> \Delta S/S</math> of the stock over a very small time interval <math>\Delta t</math> can be viewed as a normal random variable with mean <math>\mu \Delta t</math> and variance <math>\sigma^2(\Delta t)^2 </math>. One can make this notion precise by invoking the concepts from the Ito calculus.

== The Black-Scholes Formula ==
The Black-Scholes pricing formula for a European call option can be deduced from the Black-Scholes model for a stock price. A European call option on a stock with strike price <math>K</math> and time to maturity <math>T</math> is a financial contract that gives the holder the option, but not the obligation, to purchase the stock for price <math>K</math> at time <math>T</math>. In other words, a European call on the stock S is a contract that provides a single pay-off of

<math>\hbox{max}(S(T)-K,0)</math>

at time <math>T</math>. Let <math>\Phi(t)</math> denote the fair value of this contract at time <math>t< T</math>. In deriving a formula for <math>\Phi(t)</math>, Black and Scholes' key insight was that by forming a portfolio with the exact right balance of <math>S</math> and the call option, one can completely eliminate risk associated to movements in the stock price <math>S</math>. Moreover, the resulting portfolio, being risk-free, has to grow at the risk free rate. These observations implied that the fair price of the call option had to satisfy the differential equation:

<math>\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial t}+\mu S\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial S}+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2 S^2 \frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial S^2} = r\Phi
</math>

where <math>r</math> is the continuously compounded risk-free interest rate. The solution to this differential equation, satisfying the boundary condition

<math>\Phi(T) = \hbox{max}(S(T)-K,0)</math>

is given by:

<math>\Phi(t) = S(t)N(d_1) - Ke^{-r(T-t)}N(d_2)</math>

Here <math>N(x)</math> is the cumulative normal distribution function,

<math>d_1 = \frac{\log(S(t)/K)+(r+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2)(T-t)}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}</math>

and <math>d_2 = d_1-\sigma\sqrt{T}</math>

This is the famous Black-Scholes formula for the price of a European call. Note that all the variables except for <math>\sigma</math> can be observed in directly in the market at time <math>t</math>. The volatility, <math>\sigma</math> of the stock must be estimated using either statistical data, or inferred from the price of options being sold in the market.

[[Category:Economics]]

Black-Scholes

2009-05-23T03:29:58Z

Lemonpeel:

== The Black-Scholes Model ==

The Black-Scholes model for a stock price assumes that the stock price follows geometric Brownian motion with constant drift and volatility. More precisely, if S(t) the stock price at time t, then

<math>
\frac{dS}{S} = \mu dt + \sigma dW(t)
</math>

where <math>W(t)</math> is a standard Weiner stochastic process.

Loosely speaking, this means that the return <math> \Delta S/S</math> of the stock over a very small time interval <math>\Delta t</math> can be viewed as a normal random variable with mean <math>\mu \Delta t</math> and variance <math>\sigma^2(\Delta t)^2 </math>. One can make this notion precise by invoking the concepts from the Ito calculus.

== The Black-Scholes Formula ==
The Black-Scholes pricing formula for a European call option can be deduced from the Black-Scholes model for a stock price. A European call option on a stock with strike price <math>K</math> and time to maturity <math>T</math> is a financial contract that gives the holder the option, but not the obligation, to purchase the stock for price <math>K</math> at time <math>T</math>. In other words, a European call on the stock S is a contract that provides a single pay-off of

<math>\hbox{max}(S(T)-K,0)</math>

at time <math>T</math>. Let <math>\Phi(t)</math> denote the fair value of this contract at time <math>t< T</math>. In deriving a formula for <math>\Phi(t)</math>, Black and Scholes' key insight was that by forming a portfolio with the exact right balance of <math>S</math> and the call option, one can completely eliminate risk associated to movements in the stock price <math>S</math>. Moreover, the resulting portfolio, being risk-free, has to grow at the risk free rate. These observations implied that the fair price of the call option had to satisfy the differential equation:

<math>\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial t}+\mu S\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial S}+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2 S^2 \frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial S^2} = r\Phi
</math>

where <math>r</math> is the continuously compounded risk-free interest rate. The solution to this differential equation, satisfying the boundary condition

<math>\Phi(T) = \hbox{max}(S(T)-K,0)</math>

is given by:

<math>\Phi(t) = S(t)N(d_1) - Ke^{-r(T-t)}N(d_2)</math>

Here <math>N(x)</math> is the cumulative normal distribution function,

<math>d_1 = \frac{\log(S(t)/K)+(r+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2)(T-t)}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}</math>

and <math>d_2 = d_1-\sigma\sqrt{T}</math>

This is the famous Black-Scholes formula for the price of a European call. Note that all the variables except for <math>\sigma</math> can be observed in directly in the market at time <math>t</math>. The volatility, <math>\sigma</math> of the stock must be estimated using either statistical data, or inferred from the price of options being sold in the market.

Black-Scholes

2009-05-23T03:29:28Z

Lemonpeel:

== The Black Scholes Model ==

The Black-Scholes model for a stock price assumes that the stock price follows geometric Brownian motion with constant drift and volatility. More precisely, if S(t) the stock price at time t, then

<math>
\frac{dS}{S} = \mu dt + \sigma dW(t)
</math>

where <math>W(t)</math> is a standard Weiner stochastic process.

Loosely speaking, this means that the return <math> \Delta S/S</math> of the stock over a very small time interval <math>\Delta t</math> can be viewed as a normal random variable with mean <math>\mu \Delta t</math> and variance <math>\sigma^2(\Delta t)^2 </math>. One can make this notion precise by invoking the concepts from the Ito calculus.

== The Black-Scholes Formula ==
The Black-Scholes pricing formula for a European call option can be deduced from the Black-Scholes model for a stock price. A European call option on a stock with strike price <math>K</math> and time to maturity <math>T</math> is a financial contract that gives the holder the option, but not the obligation, to purchase the stock for price <math>K</math> at time <math>T</math>. In other words, a European call on the stock S is a contract that provides a single pay-off of

<math>\hbox{max}(S(T)-K,0)</math>

at time <math>T</math>. Let <math>\Phi(t)</math> denote the fair value of this contract at time <math>t< T</math>. In deriving a formula for <math>\Phi(t)</math>, Black and Scholes' key insight was that by forming a portfolio with the exact right balance of <math>S</math> and the call option, one can completely eliminate risk associated to movements in the stock price <math>S</math>. Moreover, the resulting portfolio, being risk-free, has to grow at the risk free rate. These observations implied that the fair price of the call option had to satisfy the differential equation:

<math>\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial t}+\mu S\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial S}+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2 S^2 \frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial S^2} = r\Phi
</math>

where <math>r</math> is the continuously compounded risk-free interest rate. The solution to this differential equation, satisfying the boundary condition

<math>\Phi(T) = \hbox{max}(S(T)-K,0)</math>

is given by:

<math>\Phi(t) = S(t)N(d_1) - Ke^{-r(T-t)}N(d_2)</math>

Here <math>N(x)</math> is the cumulative normal distribution function,

<math>d_1 = \frac{\log(S(t)/K)+(r+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2)(T-t)}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}</math>

and <math>d_2 = d_1-\sigma\sqrt{T}</math>

This is the famous Black-Scholes formula for the price of a European call. Note that all the variables except for <math>\sigma</math> can be observed in directly in the market at time <math>t</math>. The volatility, <math>\sigma</math> of the stock must be estimated using either statistical data, or inferred from the price of options being sold in the market.

Black-Scholes

2009-05-23T03:11:48Z

Lemonpeel:

The Black-Scholes model for a stock price assumes that the stock price follows geometric Brownian motion with constant drift and volatility. More precisely, if S(t) the stock price at time t, then

<math>
\frac{dS}{S} = \mu dt + \sigma dW(t)
</math>

where <math>W(t)</math> is a standard Weiner stochastic process.

Loosely speaking, this means that the return <math> \Delta S/S</math> of the stock over a very small time interval <math>\Delta t</math> can be viewed as a normal random variable with mean <math>\mu \Delta t</math> and variance <math>\sigma^2(\Delta t)^2 </math>. One can make this notion precise by invoking the concepts from the Ito calculus.

The Black-Scholes pricing formula for a European call option can be deduced from the Black-Scholes model for a stock price. A European call option on a stock with strike price <math>K</math> and time to maturity <math>T</math> is a financial contract that gives the holder the option, but not the obligation, to purchase the stock for price <math>K</math> at time <math>T</math>. In other words, a European call on the stock S is a contract that provides a single pay-off of

<math>\hbox{max}(S(T)-K,0)</math>

at time <math>T</math>. Let <math>\Phi(t)</math> denote the fair value of this contract at time <math>t< T</math>. In deriving a formula for <math>\Phi(t)</math>, Black and Scholes' key insight was that by forming a portfolio with the exact right balance of <math>S</math> and the call option, one can completely eliminate risk associated to movements in the stock price <math>S</math>. Moreover, the resulting portfolio, being risk-free, has to grow at the risk free rate. These observations implied that the fair price of the call option had to satisfy the differential equation:

<math>\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial t}+\mu S\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial S}+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2 S^2 \frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial S^2} = r\Phi
</math>

where <math>r</math> is the continuously compounded risk-free interest rate. The solution to this differential equation, satisfying the boundary condition

<math>\Phi(T) = \hbox{max}(S(T)-K,0)</math>

is given by:

<math>\Phi(t) = S(t)N(d_1) - Ke^{-r(T-t)}N(d_2)</math>

Here <math>N(x)</math> is the cumulative normal distribution function,

<math>d_1 = \frac{\log(S(t)/K)+(r+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2)(T-t)}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}</math>

and <math>d_2 = d_1-\sigma\sqrt{T}</math>

This is the famous Black-Scholes formula for the price of a European call. Note that all the variables except for <math>\sigma</math> can be observed in directly in the market at time <math>t</math>. The volatility, <math>\sigma</math> of the stock must be estimated using either statistical data, or inferred from the price of options being sold in the market.

Black-Scholes

2009-05-23T03:11:09Z

Lemonpeel:

The Black-Scholes model for a stock price assumes that the stock price follows geometric Brownian motion with constant drift and volatility. More precisely, if S(t) the stock price at time t, then

<math>
\frac{dS}{S} = \mu dt + \sigma dW(t)
</math>

where <math>W(t)</math> is a standard Weiner stochastic process.

Loosely speaking, this means that the return <math> \Delta S/S</math> of the stock over a very small time interval <math>\Delta t</math> can be viewed as a normal random variable with mean <math>\mu \Delta t</math> and variance <math>\sigma^2(\Delta t)^2 </math>. One can make this notion precise by invoking the concepts from the Ito calculus.

The Black-Scholes pricing formula for a European call option can be deduced from the Black-Scholes model for a stock price. A European call option on a stock with strike price <math>K</math> and time to maturity <math>T</math> is a financial contract that gives the holder the option, but not the obligation, to purchase the stock for price <math>K</math> at time <math>T</math>. In other words, a European call on the stock S is a contract that provides a single pay-off of

<math>\hbox{max}(S(T)-K,0)</math>

at time <math>T</math>. Let <math>\Phi(t)</math> denote the fair value of this contract at time <math>t< T</math>. In deriving a formula for <math>\Phi(t)</math>, Black and Scholes' key insight was that by forming a portfolio with the exact right balance of <math>S</math> and the call option, one can completely eliminate risk associated to movements in the stock price <math>S</math>. Moreover, the resulting portfolio, being risk-free, has to grow at the risk free rate. These observations implied that the fair price of the call option had to satisfy the differential equation:

<math>\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial t}+\mu S\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial S}+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2 S^2 \frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial S^2} = r\Phi
</math>

where <math>r</math> is the continuously compounded risk-free interest rate. The solution to this differential equation, satisfying the boundary condition

<math>\Phi(T) = \hbox{max}(S(T)-K,0)</math>

is given by:

<math>\Phi(t) = S(t)N(d_1) - Ke^{-r(T-t)}N(d_2)</math>

Here <math>N(x)</math> is the cumulative normal distribution function,

<math>d_1 = \frac{\log(S(t)/K)+(r+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2)(T-t)}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}</math>

and <math>d_2 = d_1-\sigma\sqrt{T}</math>

This is the famous Black-Scholes formula for the price of a European call. Note that all the variables except for <math>\sigma</math> can be observed in directly in the market. The volatility, <math>\sigma</math> of the stock must be estimated using either statistical data, or inferred from the price of options being sold in the market.

Black-Scholes

2009-05-23T03:09:59Z

Lemonpeel:

The Black-Scholes model for a stock price assumes that the stock price follows geometric Brownian motion with constant drift and volatility. More precisely, if S(t) the stock price at time t, then

<math>
\frac{dS}{S} = \mu dt + \sigma dW(t)
</math>

where <math>W(t)</math> is a standard Weiner stochastic process.

Loosely speaking, this means that the return <math> \Delta S/S</math> of the stock over a very small time interval <math>\Delta t</math> can be viewed as a normal random variable with mean <math>\mu \Delta t</math> and variance <math>\sigma^2(\Delta t)^2 </math>. One can make this notion precise by invoking the concepts from the Ito calculus.

The Black-Scholes pricing formula for a European call option can be deduced from the Black-Scholes model for a stock price. A European call option on a stock with strike price <math>K</math> and time to maturity <math>T</math> is a financial contract that gives the holder the option, but not the obligation, to purchase the stock for price <math>K</math> at time <math>T</math>. In other words, a European call on the stock S is a contract that provides a single pay-off of

<math>\hbox{max}(S(T)-K,0)</math>

at time <math>T</math>. Let <math>\Phi(t)</math> denote the fair value of this contract at time <math>t< T</math>. In deriving a formula for <math>\Phi(t)</math>, Black and Scholes' key insight was that by forming a portfolio with the exact right balance of <math>S</math> and the call option, one can completely eliminate risk associated to movements in the stock price <math>S</math>. Moreover, the resulting portfolio, being risk-free, has to grow at the risk free rate. These observations implied that the fair price of the call option had to satisfy the differential equation:

<math>\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial t}+\mu S\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial S}+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2 S^2 \frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial S^2} = r\Phi
</math>

where <math>r</math> is the continuously compounded risk-free interest rate. The solution to this differential equation, satisfying the boundary condition

<math>\Phi(T) = \hbox{max}(S(T)-K,0)</math>

is given by:

<math>\Phi(0) = S(0)N(d_1) - Ke^{-rT}N(d_2)</math>

Here <math>N(x)</math> is the cumulative normal distribution function,

<math>d_1 = \frac{\log(S(0)/K)+(r+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2)T}{\sigma\sqrt{T}}</math>

and <math>d_2 = d_1-\sigma\sqrt{T}</math>

This is the famous Black-Scholes formula for the price of a European call. Note that all the variables except for <math>\sigma</math> can be observed in directly in the market. The volatility, <math>\sigma</math> of the stock must be estimated using either statistical data, or inferred from the price of options being sold in the market.

Black-Scholes

2009-05-23T03:09:36Z

Lemonpeel:

The Black-Scholes model for a stock price assumes that the stock price follows geometric Brownian motion with constant drift and volatility. More precisely, if S(t) the stock price at time t, then

<math>
\frac{dS}{S} = \mu dt + \sigma dW(t)
</math>

where <math>W(t)</math> is a standard Weiner stochastic process.

Loosely speaking, this means that the return <math> \Delta S/S</math> of the stock over a very small time interval <math>\Delta t</math> can be viewed as a normal random variable with mean <math>\mu \Delta t</math> and variance <math>\sigma^2(\Delta t)^2 </math>. One can make this notion precise by invoking the concepts from the Ito calculus.

The Black-Scholes pricing formula for a European call option can be deduced from the Black-Scholes model for a stock price. A European call option on a stock with strike price <math>K</math> and time to maturity <math>T</math> is a financial contract that gives the holder the option, but not the obligation, to purchase the stock for price <math>K</math> at time <math>T</math>. In other words, a European call on the stock S is a contract that provides a single pay-off of

<math>\hbox{max}(S(T)-K,0)</math>

at time <math>T</math>. Let <math>\Phi(t)</math> denote the fair value of this contract at time <math>t< T</math>. In deriving a formula for <math>\Phi(t)</math>, Black and Scholes' key insight was that by forming a portfolio with the exact right balance of <math>S</math> and the call option, one can completely eliminate risk associated to movements in the stock price <math>S</math>. Moreover, the resulting portfolio, being risk-free, has to grow at the risk free rate. These observations implied that the fair price of the call option had to satisfy the differential equation:

<math>\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial t}+\mu S\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial S}+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2 S^2 \frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial S^2} = r\Phi
</math>

where <math>r</math> is the continuously compounded risk-free interest rate. The solution to this differential equation, satisfying the boundary condition

<math>\Phi(T) = \hbox{max}(S(T)-K,0)</math>

is given by:

<math>\Phi(0) = S(0)N(d_1) - Ke^{-rT}N(d_2)</math>

Here <math>N(x)</math> is the cumulative normal distribution function,

<math>d_1 = \frac{\log(S(0)/K)+(r+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2)}{\sigma\sqrt{T}}</math>

and <math>d_2 = d_1-\sigma\sqrt{T}</math>

This is the famous Black-Scholes formula for the price of a European call. Note that all the variables except for <math>\sigma</math> can be observed in directly in the market. The volatility, <math>\sigma</math> of the stock must be estimated using either statistical data, or inferred from the price of options being sold in the market.

Black-Scholes

2009-05-23T03:08:19Z

Lemonpeel:

The Black-Scholes model for a stock price assumes that the stock price follows geometric Brownian motion with constant drift and volatility. More precisely, if S(t) the stock price at time t, then

<math>
\frac{dS}{S} = \mu dt + \sigma dW(t)
</math>

where <math>W(t)</math> is a standard Weiner stochastic process.

Loosely speaking, this means that the return <math> \Delta S/S</math> of the stock over a very small time interval <math>\Delta t</math> can be viewed as a normal random variable with mean <math>\mu \Delta t</math> and variance <math>\sigma^2(\Delta t)^2 </math>. One can make this notion precise by invoking the concepts from the Ito calculus.

The Black-Scholes pricing formula for a European call option can be deduced from the Black-Scholes model for a stock price. A European call option on a stock with strike price <math>K</math> and time to maturity <math>T</math> is a financial contract that gives the holder the option, but not the obligation, to purchase the stock for price <math>K</math> at time <math>T</math>. In other words, a European call on the stock S is a contract that provides a single pay-off of

<math>\hbox{max}(S(T)-K,0)</math>

at time <math>T</math>. Let <math>\Phi(t)</math> denote the fair value of this contract at time <math>t< T</math>. In deriving a formula for <math>\Phi(t)</math>, Black and Scholes' key insight was that by forming a portfolio with the exact right balance of <math>S</math> and the call option, one can completely eliminate risk associated to movements in the stock price <math>S</math>. Moreover, the resulting portfolio, being risk-free, has to grow at the risk free rate. These observations implied that the fair price of the call option had to satisfy the differential equation:

<math>\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial t}+\mu S\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial S}+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2 S^2 \frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial S^2} = r\Phi
</math>

where <math>r</math> is the continuously compounded risk-free interest rate. The solution to this differential equation, satisfying the boundary condition

<math>\Phi(T) = \hbox{max}(S(T)-K,0)</math>

is given by:

<math>\Phi(0) = S(0)N(d_1) - Ke^{-rT}N(d_2)</math>

Here <math>N(x)</math> is the cumulative normal distribution function,

<math>d_1 = \frac{\log(S(0)/K)+(r+1/2\sigma^2)}{\sigma\sqrt{T}}</math>

and <math>d_2 = d_1-\sigma\sqrt{T}</math>

This is the famous Black-Scholes formula for the price of a European call. Note that all the variables except for <math>\sigma</math> can be observed in directly in the market. The volatility, <math>\sigma</math> of the stock must be estimated using either statistical data, or inferred from the price of options being sold in the market.

Black-Scholes

2009-05-23T03:07:44Z

Lemonpeel: Created page with 'The Black-Scholes model for a stock price assumes that the stock price follows geometric Brownian motion with constant drift and volatility. More precisely, if S(t) the stock pri...'

The Black-Scholes model for a stock price assumes that the stock price follows geometric Brownian motion with constant drift and volatility. More precisely, if S(t) the stock price at time t, then

<math>
\frac{dS}{S} = \mu dt + \sigma dW(t)
</math>
where <math>W(t)</math> is a standard Weiner stochastic process.

Loosely speaking, this means that the return <math> \Delta S/S</math> of the stock over a very small time interval <math>\Delta t</math> can be viewed as a normal random variable with mean <math>\mu \Delta t</math> and variance <math>\sigma^2(\Delta t)^2 </math>. One can make this notion precise by invoking the concepts from the Ito calculus.

The Black-Scholes pricing formula for a European call option can be deduced from the Black-Scholes model for a stock price. A European call option on a stock with strike price <math>K</math> and time to maturity <math>T</math> is a financial contract that gives the holder the option, but not the obligation, to purchase the stock for price <math>K</math> at time <math>T</math>. In other words, a European call on the stock S is a contract that provides a single pay-off of

<math>\hbox{max}(S(T)-K,0)</math>

at time <math>T</math>. Let <math>\Phi(t)</math> denote the fair value of this contract at time <math>t< T</math>. In deriving a formula for <math>\Phi(t)</math>, Black and Scholes' key insight was that by forming a portfolio with the exact right balance of <math>S</math> and the call option, one can completely eliminate risk associated to movements in the stock price <math>S</math>. Moreover, the resulting portfolio, being risk-free, has to grow at the risk free rate. These observations implied that the fair price of the call option had to satisfy the differential equation:

<math>\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial t}+\mu S\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial S}+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2 S^2 \frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial S^2} = r\Phi
</math>

where <math>r</math> is the continuously compounded risk-free interest rate. The solution to this differential equation, satisfying the boundary condition

<math>\Phi(T) = \hbox{max}(S(T)-K,0)</math>

is given by:

<math>\Phi(0) = S(0)N(d_1) - Ke^{-rT}N(d_2)</math>

Here <math>N(x)</math> is the cumulative normal distribution function,

<math>d_1 = \frac{\log(S(0)/K)+(r+1/2\sigma^2)}{\sigma\sqrt{T}}</math>

and <math>d_2 = d_1-\sigma\sqrt{T}</math>

This is the famous Black-Scholes formula for the price of a European call. Note that all the variables except for <math>\sigma</math> can be observed in directly in the market. The volatility, <math>\sigma</math> of the stock must be estimated using either statistical data, or inferred from the price of options being sold in the market.

Basis

2008-09-01T02:34:41Z

Lemonpeel: deleted confusing and inappropriate comparison to vector space bases

''Basis is a [[mathematics]] term.''

A '''basis''' ''B'' for a [[topology]] ''T'' on a set ''X'' is a collection of subsets of ''X'' (called '''basis elements''') such that
#each ''x'' in ''X'', is in at least one basis element.
#if x is in the intersection of 2 basis elements ''B1'' and ''B2'', then it is in some basis element ''B3'', where ''B3'' is a subset of ''B1 ∩ B2''.

If ''B'' satisfy the above 2 conditions, then the '''topology ''T'' generated by ''B''''' is the collection of subsets ''U'' of ''X'' such that for each ''x'' in ''U'', there is a basis element ''V'' in ''B'' such that ''x'' is in ''V'' and ''V'' is a subset of ''U''.

[[category:topology]][[category:linear algebra]]

Talk:Basis

2008-09-01T02:33:45Z

Lemonpeel: New page: What?? Why is this article talking about vector space bases and topological bases in the same breath? You know what, I'm just going to delete the part I don't like.--~~~~

What?? Why is this article talking about vector space bases and topological bases in the same breath? You know what, I'm just going to delete the part I don't like.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 22:33, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Natural logarithm

2008-08-20T00:32:32Z

Lemonpeel: New page: The natural logarithm, <math>\ln(x)</math> is the inverse of the function <math>e^x</math>. In other words, if <math>y = e^x</math>, we define <math>\ln(y) = x</math>. The natural logarit...

The natural logarithm, <math>\ln(x)</math> is the inverse of the function <math>e^x</math>. In other words, if <math>y = e^x</math>, we define <math>\ln(y) = x</math>.

The natural logarithm has some interesting properties that follow from the multiplicative properties of <math>e^x</math>. I'd list them here, but last time I did that, this whole page got deleted. So the interested reader is advised to consult another internet resource like wikipedia.

Talk:Exterior derivative

2008-08-20T00:12:59Z

Lemonpeel: New page: Look, last time I checked, the exterior derivative is mentioned in the Maxwell's equation article. But there was no link to any definition. Well, now you have one. Now you're complaining t...

Look, last time I checked, the exterior derivative is mentioned in the Maxwell's equation article. But there was no link to any definition. Well, now you have one. Now you're complaining that the exterior derivative article is "too full of jargon." Give me a break. It's an inherently technical topic. If you don't want articles on the exterior derivative, then don't make references to the exterior derivative in the Maxwell's equations article. You can't have it both ways.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 20:12, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Exterior derivative

2008-08-20T00:09:09Z

Lemonpeel: removed jargon tag, see talk page comment

Let <math>f:M\rightarrow \mathbb{R}</math> be a [[smooth]] [[function]] on a [[manifold]]. The '''differential''' (or '''exterior derivative'''), <math>df</math>, is a [[covector field]] on ''M'' defined as follows: for ''v'' a [[tangent]] [[vector]] at a point <math>p</math>

<math>
df(v) = D_{v}(f)
</math>

i.e., <math>df(v)</math> is the [[directional derivative]] of ''f'' in the direction ''v''.

Note that if <math>x_1,...,x_n</math> are a local [[coordinate system]] for ''M'' at ''p'', then <math>dx_1,...,dx_n</math> define a local co-frame near ''p''. Thus, near ''p'', we may write the differential of ''f'' as a [[linear combination]]:

<math>
df = g_1 dx_1 +...+ g_n dx_n
</math>

In fact, since <math>dx_i(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}) = \delta^i_j</math>, we get that:

<math>
df = \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_1} dx_1 + ... + \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_n} dx_n
</math>

==Exterior derivative of differential forms==

If <math>\omega</math> is a [[differential form|differential k-form]] (i.e., a smooth section of <math>\Lambda^k T^*M</math>), the exterior derivative <math>d\omega</math> is a differential (k+1)-form defined as follows:

If we can write <math>\omega</math> in local coordinates as

<math>
f_{i_1\cdots i_k} dx_{i_1}\wedge\cdots\wedge dx_{i_k}
</math>

then in this coordinate system, <math>d\omega</math> equals

<math>
df_{i_1\cdots i_k}\wedge dx_{i_1}\wedge\cdots\wedge dx_{i_k}
</math>

More generally, we define the differential <math>d\omega</math> by extending the above definition by [[linearity]].

==Cohomological properties of the differential==

The [[operator]] ''d'' has the important property that <math>d\circ d = 0</math>. This essentially follows from the equality of mixed [[partial derivative]]s. The following simplest example illustrates the general proof: Let <math>f(x,y)</math> be a smooth function in two variables. Then

<math>
df = \frac{\partial f}{\partial x} dx + \frac{\partial f}{\partial y} dy
</math>

Thus

<math>
d^2 f = \frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial y\partial x}dy\wedge dx + \frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x\partial y}dx\wedge dy
</math>

Since <math>dx\wedge dy = -dy\wedge dx</math>, the equality of mixed partials shows that <math>d^2 f = 0</math>.

[[Category:Mathematics]]