Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Theory of relativity

2020-01-31T18:32:32Z

NgSmith: added an indentation

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

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

For older discussions, see the archive [[Talk:Theory of relativity/index|index]]. 
|valign="top" style="text-align:right"|[[Image:Conservlogo.png|65px]]
|}


== Special relativity and evidence ==
Many objects have been accelerated to velocities near the speed of light (in particle colliders) and it is easily observed that the rate at which those objects speed up as a constant force is applied is (very precisely) consistent with special relativity and not Gallilean relativity. That is, as their measured speed approaches the speed of light, that speed increases less and less in response to each "push" even though the "pushes" remain the same strength, thus apparently violating Newton's F = ma. On the other hand, Einstein's famous E = gamma * mc^2 appears to describe their rate of acceleration very accurately. I don't understand how this article proposes to surmount that objection. [[User:ZeroThree|ZeroThree]] 15:47, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

:What about all the evidence for Maxwell's equations, including electromagnets and radio waves, and all the everyday inventions that demonstrate that these things are real? Maxwell's equations contradict classical physics, and relativity was developed specifically to make Maxwell's equations valid in all reference frames. This includes not only the issue of a constant speed of light, but also magnetic fields arising from "moving" charges, where motion is defined in terms of each observer. Indeed, special relativity can be derived directly from Maxwell's equations. Any confirmation of Maxwell's equations is consistent with relativity and not with Galilean relativity. [[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Fri Jan 31 13:29:34 EST 2020

== Mass depending on direction ==

The article states:
:''There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical.''

As [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] on 8 July 2007 (EDT): ''This paragraph is nonsense [..] The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

The observation sited in the first sentence of this article has been discredited. [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp] It appears that a loose fiber-optics cable is to blame for the misreadings. I suggest editing this first sentence, and any other mention of this in the article.--[[User:CarloP|CarloP]] 18:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)

:Issues concerning the neutrino experiment are not yet fully resolved. No problam: I replaced it with another counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?

Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:''Conservapedia'' seeks the truth, not merely what the [[lamestream media]] claim is the truth. Moreover, once one accepts a logical fallacy, then anything false can be proven from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:: Ahh.... But the fact that the conclusion is false does not necessarily render the basis false. I could say "Andy Schlafly founded Conservapedia and therefore I am a pig monkey." I am not a pig monkey, and even if I were, that has nothing to do with you founding this website. But you still did. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:58, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:When looking around the internet, it is obvious that Conservapedia's classification of relativity as [[pseudoscience]] is a source of some amusement and contempt. Aschlafly, could you please answer the two questions I raised above? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:27, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, liberal peer pressure from "around the internet" does not illuminate the truth. If what liberals on the internet said made a dime's bit of difference, then the [[Bible]] would not be the best selling book (by far) and the percentage of people who are [[conservative]] would not be growing (as it does).

::"Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?" Because it's false, it confuses people, it misleads people into stop reading the Bible, and its orthodoxy interferes with the advancement of science for the benefit of all. Other than that, it's not a bad theory!

::"Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition?" The only bias is by liberals who shout down any criticism of the theory. If the theory were so clearly true, then there would be no need for some liberals to rely on [[censorship]] in propping it up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I note that anyone using a GPS is relying on the Theory of Relativity being true, since calculations derived from Relativity are used within a GPS. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:GPS does '''''not''''' rely on the [[Theory of Relativity]], and this has been thoroughly explained on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Hi Aschlafly, I've located at least some of the discussion re GPS in the archives of this talk page, and there a lot of references for me to examine before I can make any further serious comments; certainly there are some references which appear to state that GPS relies on relativity. Can you perhaps draw my attention to what you consider the most important (half-dozen or so) references which indicate that the GPS system does NOT rely on relativity so that I have somewhere to start from? In the meantime I'll continue editing and improving less controversial articles as I have been doing for the last two months (my talk page lists nearly 40 articles I can usefully contribute to). [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:::This note 7 is on [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]:

::::Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

:::The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing: the small effects claimed by the special and general theories nearly cancel each other out for orbiting satellites. From an engineering perspective, it makes far more sense simply to adjust the clocks using synchronization rather than relying on (dubious) theoretical claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Another false claim because of sloppy reading: In the same source by The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, you can find how the authors Fliegel and DiEsposti describe what is happening to the clocks in the satellites:
''Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45 × 10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec. (p. 193).

The text is about the necessity of ''further'' corrections by the ''operational control system'' - there are corrections ''already'' installed in the clocks!

''The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing:'' This sentence is wrong. It has shown to be wrong a couple of times, so it starts to become a lie. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:12, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Theory of Relativity]] was not used to develop GPS, nor would it be sensible to waste time and money doing so. Synchronization is cheaper, simpler, and more reliable. The above quote does not contradict this obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

::The fact that these offsets are implemented in the clocks '''in accord with the theory of relativity''' as you can read in the very source you quoted shows that the [[Theory of Relativity]] is used in the GPS - and this from the very beginning of the project! Please, start to read your sources - completely! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:37, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Please, before we get into any more debate, could someone supply some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:41, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly took his quote from [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti (though he probably isn't aware of this). The paper is about relativistic effects due to moving GPS-'''''receivers''''' (or GPS-receivers in high altitudes) and comes to the conclusion, that at the moment, they don't have to include additional relativistic corrections.

:Aschlafly interprets this as if ''no'' relativistic corrections are implemented in the GPS.
:However, in the paper itself, you will find the section I quoted above, where the authors describe such very corrections within the clocks of the satellites.
:I'm afraid that Aschlafly won't come up with ''some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS'' as there aren't any.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:53, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Folks, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the [[Theory of Relativity]] was used to design GPS. That burden includes describing who, when, where, how, and why. It didn't happen. And if it did, the person who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:It looks to me as if you are trying to put impossible conditions prior to any debate. To avoid a lengthy debate all you have to do is produce some actual references which support your point of view. Is this too much to ask?

:If it didn't happen then you should be able to produce some evidence of this, so '''some actual references please'''. The only 'evidence' you have produced so far is an out-of-context quote from a paper which is concerned primarily with GPS receivers (that same paper mentions the use of relativity-related adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellite transmitters). Surely you must have more than this. Will you accept evidence from engineers and companies involved in designing and building the GPS system? If not, why not? Who would you accept evidence from? The US Department of Defense? Do you seriously expect a member of the public to be able to access internal design documents as your "who, when, where, how, and why" statement implies?

:If you care to check my contribution history you will see that I am actively contributing non-controversial information to articles. This discussion re GPS etc. is only a small part of my activities on Conservapedia. Since I've barely started on considering and consolidating what evidence there is re GPS I would rather have a week or so to look at the evidence before getting into a debate. This should give you ample time to come up with some references to support the separation of GPS and relativity. Simple searches via Google turn up numerous instances where relativity is claimed to be relevant to GPS, but I can't find anything to the contrary and '''I need your help to do so'''. I would really like to see evidence from '''both sides''' of the discussion before entering the debate, so '''some actual references please'''. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 19:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, you're requesting proof that something didn't happen. Moreover, someone with an engineering background (such as myself) would not expect it to have happened. It is like asking for a reference that no green cheese was found on the Moon. No such scientific reference is likely to exist, nor would anyone expect such a reference to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:28, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:: Every single article on GPS says that relativistic adjustments are made to the satellite clocks. Some give the formulas and some give quantitative data on the adjustments. Textbooks explain why the adjustments are necessary. I don't see any reason to doubt that GPS uses relativistic adjustments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:52, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::GPS does make synchronizing adjustments. Call them whatever you like, but those adjustments are not made based on predictions by the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Indeed, it would be a silly waste of time and money to synchronize in such a manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Unless you drive the flying Delorean from ''Back to the Future'', relativity would say that its effect on your car when you're driving at normal speeds is so small it need not be accounting for. The normal error for GPS (about 40 feet) is many magnitudes higher than the error relativity would cause. Now, the GPS in the Flying DeLorean would be another issue. But until that's invented, let's not worry about it, ok? Of course, if you were orienteering, your speed would be even slower than if you were driving. Indeed, if you were moving at any normal speed (even a supersonic jet), relativity would be incredibly small (assuming that it exists as scientists explain it). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:14, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::''GPS does make synchronizing adjustments'' Not only simple synchronizing: read the specifications for the GPS, read the sources ''in full'' which you are quoting, and you will see that all these engineers and scientists don't give a damn that you think that they are wasting ''time and money''.
:::::Aschlafly, your position is only tenable as you are willing to ignore most of the data which is presented to you. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you believe very firmly that relativity has nothing to do with GPS, even though you are unwilling to present any evidence to support this belief, and wish to put severe restrictions on what 'proof' of the relationship other folks may present. I raised some five questions above as to what sort of evidence you might consider. Could you please answer these questions.

::I'd like to ask Mr. Schafly if he could explain what the clock adjustments on GPS satellites are for, the article is not clear, and neither is anything on this talk page.--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:44, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Cahnkj, herewith a summary of the clock-adjustment situation as I (RolandPlankton) see it. Newton's equations of motions say nothing about how clocks keep time. Einstein's equations of relativity imply that identical clocks will vary in their timekeeping (tick at different rates) if they are travelling at different speeds, or if they are at different heights in a gravitational field, or if they are subject to different accelerations; see [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview]. Now the satellites used in the GPS system require very accurate clocks which are in step with ground-based clocks. The paper just quoted provides the various relativistic equations which apply - the satellites are travelling faster than a ground-based receiver, and are at a different height in a gravitational field. Prior to launch the clocks in the GPS satellites are deliberately set to a different tick rate from ground-based clocks, so that when they are in orbit the clocks will appear to tick at the same rate; the difference in tick rates is about 38 nanoseconds per day, and this adjustment can be calculated from the relevant relativistic equations.

:::But the problem is that Aschlafly rejects the Theory of Relativity, and hence rejects any calculation based on that. The only serious argument he has put forth on this current talk page (see preceding section) is an appeal to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Truth the truth]; the quote he provides above is also demolished above. You may wish to consult [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], which is rebutted point by point in [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].

:::Hope this doesn't add too much to the confusion. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 12:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Mr. Schlafly states above that "the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the Theory of Relativity was used to design GPS." (This is a fair requirement, and it seems as this has been done when AugustO referred to the Fliegel and DiEsposti paper above.)

::::But really, isn't the burden of proof on anyone who claims ''anything'' on this site, since Conservapedia Commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable" and Commandment #2 states that users should "always cite and give credit to <nowiki>[their]</nowiki> sources?" --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 19:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Good point. Anyone who asserts ''on this site'' that GPS was designed based on the [[Theory of Relativity]] needs to prove the claim. Note that the claim is implausible because it is cheaper, easier, and more precise to synchronize GPS based on observations rather than theoretical speculation. Also note that no [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for verification of the [[Theory of Relativity]] with GPS.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:55, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::Whether GPS was designed based on Relativity or not may be irrelevant. Whether or not Relativity is necessary for the clocks to run efficiently and accurately, also irrelevant. Observations of the satellites are still consistent with the predictions of General and Special Relativity as evidenced here: http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp. Please not that this is an article by the same Tom Van Flandern quoted on this site as saying that relativity is unnecessary for GPS calculations, so I trust this is a source you will accept. Here he is saying here that while relativity may be UNNECESSARY for those calculations, it is still CONFIRMED by our observations.[[User:Williagz|Gus Williams]] 14:03, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

===A Separate Question for Mr. Schlafly About References===

::Aschlafly, as a separate issue, in view of of your apparent attitude to references, could I ask you to have a look at the articles I have been working on over the last two months: [[Pi]], [[Programming language]], [[Compiler]], and the work-in-progress [[Chomsky hierarchy]]. Obviously I'm only asking you to consider the changes I have made. In particular, can you check if the references are acceptable to you, and can you also check that the general style and level of writing is in accordance with Conservapedia's aims? The next article I intend to turn my intention to is [[Context-Free Grammar]], since it seems to me that this fails to satisfy [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]] "Articles on complex topics need an introduction which assumes little or no previous knowledge". [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:03, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Roland, your good edits are appreciated and I've seen no complaints about them. I agree that the [[Context-Free Grammar]] would benefit from a better introduction and look forward to reading what you add there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

===READ THE MANUAL===
This debate seems pretty ridiculous, given that GPS is a public system with open specifications. If you're building a GPS receiver you do, in fact, need to compensate for relativistic effects. The correction equations that must be used on the receiving side equipment are given in the official GPS interface specification, IS-GPS-200G [http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200G.pdf], p.92. section 20.3.3.3.3.1: User Algorithm for SV Clock Correction.

<blockquote>
The polynomial defined in the
following allows the user to determine the effective SV PRN code phase offset referenced to the
phase center of the antennas with respect to GPS system time (t) at the time of data
transmission. The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the two frequency
user for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This estimated
correction accounts for the deterministic SV clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as
well as for the SV implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential
group delay. '''Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function'''...
</blockquote>
I did not include the equations here, but they're given in the manual. --[[User:Smac56|Smac56]] 16:54, 7 December 2014 (EST)

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

A good question was raised above: if synchronization to GPS is not due to the [[Theory of Relativity]], then what is it due to?

And the answer is simply this: [[quantum mechanics]]. There are fundamental uncertainties, and those uncertainties will lead to clock differences. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible. It isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

Where to start with this. This is so bad it isn't even wrong. Could I respectfully suggest that you confine your efforts to areas you understand at least a little bit.

The impossibility of perpetual motion has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. It comes from the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics and predates quantum mechanics by at least 100 years.

The uncertainty principle is also completely irrelevant. If we imagine a 100 kg satellite moving at a velocity of approximately 100 km/s (this is three times the earth's velocity , so is a plausible and easy to handle number). If we know the satelites location to an uncertainty of 1cm then the uncertainty on its velocity implied by the uncertainty principle is 1 part in 10^39 (i.e. completely negligable).[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 13:10, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

:Well, this is progress indeed. Could you please provide references to support the contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects?

:Also, as an aside, how do you say that fundamental uncertainties described by quantum mechanics relate to the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine? Not sure I follow you there. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 23:36, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::It's basic logic. Unless someone denies [[quantum mechanics]] and the fundamental uncertainties it describes -- and many [[Relativists]] do deny it -- then synchronization will be required as a logical result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Do you have any references? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I haven't looked ... nor is it necessary to. I wouldn't look for references to confirm any logical statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Really? Is it fair to say then that this contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects is not something that you have read about but rather something that you yourself concluded from your own knowledge of quantum mechanics and GPS systems? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::P.S. As a result of this discussion I found a couple of articles which appear to confirm that GPS satellites have their clocks adjusted by about 38,000 nanoseconds per day before launch in compliance with relitavistic predictions (both Special and General Relativity are taken into account). The articles are [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp here] and [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html here]. Is there really any question that this is what is happening? I would think that if these sources are to be questioned that some sort of reference should be provided. A mere assertion that the adjustments are as a result of quantum mechanical effects and that it is a matter of logic would not usually be enough for any serious encyclopedia. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::The references are [[hearsay]]. Logic is far more compelling, more efficient, and more likely to lead to the correct result.

::::::To take the analogy mentioned above, if you agree that [[perpetual motion machines]] are impossible, what is the reason?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:45, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Quantum mechanics gives a probabilistic model of phenomena. Indeed, the page you linked for quantum mechanics states:
::"If we measure such an observable, generally the wave function does not predict exactly which value we will obtain. Instead, the wave function gives us the probability that a certain value will be obtained."
:If this is the case, that means that Quantum mechanical phenomena are ''unpredictable''. How is it that clock adjustments can be made based on unpredictable events, ie, probabilities?
:I'd also like to know how the GPS system is affected by these phenomena.
:--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 01:51, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Logic is a nice thing. But engineers like to calculate. So could you give us a Ballpark estimate for the quantum mechanic effects which come into play here? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:(Edit conflict x2) Andy, as a lawyer I can assure you that hearsay is a [[legal]] concept which is of little use in this sort of scientific discussion. Whilst I understand that non-legally trained people sometimes confuse the nature and applicability of the concept, I can confirm that it has no relevance here.

:The difficulty here arises from your wanting to assert the truth of a matter without providing either references or even the basis for you own logic. Just saying "quantum mechanics" is hardly enlightening. Do you deny that GPS satellite clocks are adjusted by approximately 38,000 nanoseconds as referred to in the references that I provided? If not, do you say that there is a quantum calculation that accounts for that adjustment? What is that quantum calculation and what is it based on? I am really having difficulty in understanding the basis for all of this. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 02:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, this reference [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] has been pointed out to you several times already. Since it is published by folks actually working on the GPS system, I hardly think that it qualifies as 'hearsay'. It contains all the relevant relativistic equations, which are not really that complicated, and derives the 38 nanosecond figure quoted above. An assertion on scientific matters without any evidence can't really be taken seriously. Can we please see the quantum mechanical equations and calculations which come up with the same or similar result? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, I'm inclined to suspect that your disbelief in relativity is so strong that you are unwilling to consider any evidence which might indicate that relativity could be correct, and are hence flailing around looking for some other explanation as to what actually happens (GPS clock adjustment by 38 ns). Would you care to comment on my suspicion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Quote: "A logical statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false." [http://www.ontotext.com/factforge/logical-statement].

So Aschlafly, why don't you need a reference to confirm a logical statement? Just because a statement is logical doesn't mean that it is true. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

: It would be helpful to have a more modern reference. GPS switched to a system of daily updates to the satellites. Maybe those relativistic formulas cause errors that require daily clock synchronizations to correct. Not likely. But to prove the point we ought to find a reference that says that the satellites still use the 38 ns/day relativistic adjustments, and that the daily corrections are much smaller than that. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:18, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::The best I've found so far is [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf] from Physics Today, May 2002. This confirms the initial adjustment and mentions further on page 7: "Additional small frequency offsets arise from clock drift, environmental changes, and other unavoidable effects such as the inability to launch the satellite into an orbit with precisely the desired semimajor axis. The satellite clock frequencies are adjusted so that they remain as close as possible to the frequency of the Naval Observatory's clock ensemble." Unfortunately it doesn't give the actual size of the adjustments, thought the word 'small' does indicate it as being much less than the initial adjustment. I rather like the last sentence of this paper: "Ordinary users of the GPS, though they may not need to be aware of it, have thus become dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:26, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The lack of evidence, amid so much political pressure to prove it, is indicative that no proof can be found. Notice how no [[Nobel Prize]]s have been given for GPS confirming the [[Theory of Relativity]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:01, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::If you want to use the [[Nobel Prize]] as evidence against relativity, might I direct you to:
:::http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/relativity/
:::Where the official Nobel Prize website discusses various experiments related to relativity, and the relevant [[Nobel Prize]]s awarded for them.
:::--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:32, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::::GPS is not even on that overly broad list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, I've tried to confine my evidence to items which not even you can claim as 'hearsay'. A simple Google search turns up hundreds of references linking GPS and relativity, but in view of your earlier dismissal of such as hearsay, I thought I'd better stick to indisputable items. At least there is some fairly convincing evidence linking GPS with relativity (including all the relevant equations and the result of applying these equations), unlike your assertion linking GPS with quantum mechanics, where you have produced precisely zero evidence. You still haven't responded to my comments and question re 'logical statements' above. So, where is the evidence for your assertion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 02:46, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:::There is no credible evidence that the [[Theory of Relativity]] had anything to do with the development of GPS. In addition, not even the pro-Relativity [[Nobel Prize]] [[liberals]] say that GPS proves the theory.

:::My comment about [[quantum mechanics]] was in response to a question about why synchronization is needed. Unless someone thinks that [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible (have you answered my question about that?), then synchronization will be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Could you please clarify what the connection between synchronisation, quantum mechanics and perpetual motion machines is? From what I've learned, clock synchronisation between the satellites is necessary because any signal between them travels at a finite speed, namely the speed of light. Do you deny that? The claim is that in order to compute the signal travel time and thus to synchronize the clocks correctly, the relative velocities and the differences in gravitational potential due to the different altitudes of the satellites (and Earth's surface) have to be taken into account. Do you think that is wrong? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:56, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

Lets stick to the subject (GPS and relativity); perpetual motion is a complete red herring, and I'm not sure how Nobel prizes come into the picture (we're debating science, not prizes).
On the basis of '''actual evidence produced''' in this discussion so far, I think that we can confidently state four facts:
#Prior to launch, the clock in a GPS satellite is set to run about 38 nanoseconds/day different from an otherwise identical clock on the earth's surface.
#When in orbit the GPS clock then appears to tick at the same rate as an identical clock on the earth's surface.
#Equations based on the theory of relativity accurately come up with this figure of around 38 nanoseconds.
#No evidence has been produced to show how quantum mechanics is involved.

If anyone disagrees with any of the above, they need to bear in mind ('''emphasis''' added):
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 1 Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''.
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 2 '''Always cite''' and give credit to your sources.
:from Conservapedia:Guidelines/Reliability 4 A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated.

Hope this summary helps. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:41, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

: That is the story as I have heard it. Except that I heard that the 38 ns/day adjustment was remotely switchable, because of relativity skeptics who did not believe that it would be necessary. I also don't agree that GPS is "dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." The GPS system has the ability to measure the daily adjustments that it needs. So even with any relativity theory or Einstein conception, it could just make those 38 ns/day adjustments and GPS would have all the accuracy it has today. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::In the summary I was careful to stick to facts supported by evidence, and to avoid saying "GPS is dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time", even though the two main references I have quoted do in fact say this. All I said was that the adjustment calculated according to relativity agrees with the actual adjustment, from which one might reasonably conclude, in this instance at least, that relativity is consistent with reality. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 15:44, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I note that no one has proposed any credible alternative theory as to why the orbiting clocks tick at a different speed from surface clocks, so until some better theory comes along I'm quite happy to stick with relativity. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:In the last week, apart from one clarification question from [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], no one has challenged the 'four facts' summary I provided above. According I will shortly move a copy of this summary along with the relevant references in to the talk pages of other relevant articles, and will then update those articles to match. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 13:36, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Beware: in your fact #1, the correction is 38 '''micro'''seconds, not '''nano'''seconds. See [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html]. My own rough calculations also agree that it's microseconds. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 15:05, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Well spotted, Judy. I've gone back to one of the sources and it is indeed 38 microseconds. Thank you for the correction. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:10, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
All right, can Andy Schlafly explain how adjusting the exponent in the law of gravity accounts for the orbits of the other planets? You know the reason why no one considers that as an alternative? Are you ready?! '''Because it doesn't work!''' And can you tell me why Einstein came up with GR? Was it to explain the orbit of Mercury? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 21:36, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:::In response to your first question, the reason is purely political. Any grad student who suggests that tweaking the exponent in Newtonian mechanics is an interesting approach worth more attention will thereby eliminate his chances for obtaining a PhD.

:::In response to your second point, GR was tweaked to explain the Mercury perihelion precession, but now the more precisely observed data fail to match the theory. Grad students and Nobel Prize wannabes are clever enough to keep quiet about it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:56, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

Andy: You make an interesting point about people not thinking that the Newcomb/Hall theory of planetary precession is an interesting approach—I hadn't thought about that aversion. I'm not sure why you think that people who take an interest in that theory would eliminate their chances of getting a PhD—people take an interest in historical aspects of science all the time. I can think of a few discarded scientific theories that are commonly discussed in science classes: The Ptolemaic theory of the solar system, the "plum pudding" model of the atom, and the phlogiston theory of combustion come to mind. The first two are very commonly taught in science classes. I think this is because they do a very good job of illustrating the scientific method and the value of careful analytical thinking. The phlogiston theory also illustrates careful thinking, but it isn't discussed in science classes nearly as much. My guess is that this is because it's harder to visualize. You can easily make a diagram in a textbook of the epicycles of Ptolemy and the ellipses of Kepler. And the model of electrons circling the nucleus, as per the Rutherford atom, is pretty much the logo for all things atomic. Lavoisier's (and others') experiments with combustion don't make for as dramatic an illustration.

The Simon Newcomb / Asaph Hall theory of planetary precession, unfortunately, seems to be even less photogenic. The effect being explained, 43 arcseconds per century, may be hard to get sudents excited about. But I doubt whether anyone jeopardizes their academic or research careers by being interested in it.

Idea: How about if I write some articles about the 4 theories (Ptolemy/Kepler, pudding/Rutherford, phlogiston/oxidation, and Newcomb/Einstein)? We could create a category for discarded scientific theories.

But I won't get to it any time soon. I'm very busy at Ameriwiki.

By the way, I have to thank you for the "E=mc^2" article. It really sharpened my thinking about the issues involved in special relativity, and it contributed to the outline of the articles I'm writing at Ameriwiki.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:40, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

::: Ugh, the reasons GPS devices don't contain the "rigorous transformations" that relativity "would seem to require" is very simple. The satellites are in geosynchronous orbits, and the difference in time that relativity causes only need to be calculated once. From then on, it's simply a case of adding a few ns every day to the satellite clocks to account for this. I would've thought that was obvious to an expert. And only an expert should be attempting to write authoratively on the theory of relativity! A certificate in physics does not an expert make. [[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 15:09, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

== Logic and the GPS ==

*Atomic watches work on the Earth quite fine
*[[Quantum mechanics]] describe the physics of ''very small length and energy scales''
*Satellites are macroscopic objects.
*Even a precision of 1cm on the surface of the Earth isn't a very small length.

So which kind of logic tells us that quantum mechanical effects influence the synchronization of the clocks? Why are not only the scientists involved lying, but also their calculations?

For me it seems to be a logical conclusion that you, Aschlafly, are even more knowledgeable of Greek than of Science! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:He's trying to apply the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle to satellites? Are you kidding me? That principle is used for things at the ATOMIC LEVEL! Using ANYTHING with regards to quantum mechanics in an argument about satellites is absurdism and/or ignorance of the subject matter! Seriously Andy, I know you hate the Theory of Relativity, but you should really leave science to those who understand it. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 16:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::For someone who thinks that Brownian motion is about motion at the sub-atomic level your suggestions of scientific superiority ring hollow.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 10:15, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

== Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession ==

I removed the phrase "[precession can be understood by] factoring in the gravitational pull due to other planets". The first sentence of that paragraph says the opposite, that the extra precession cannot be understood "even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets". Unless I'm reading it wrong, it sounded like a contradiction. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 16:51, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:Where is the contradiction? If the exponent in Newtonian gravity is slightly adjusted, then it predicts the Mercury precession.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:01, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I'm curious as to the justification for changing a formula in Newtonian gravity. Do you change it for every situation, or just for this one special case? Can you give us the adjusted formula, and specify the exact change? For such a change in physics which has been in use for over 250 years I would like to see a reference, preferably several good references. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:25, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
:::The old Newcomb-Hall hypothesis. [http://books.google.at/books?id=oKGlHjDzGjQC&lpg=PA379&dq=newcomb%20hall%20precession&pg=PA379#v=onepage&q=newcomb%20hall%20precession&f=false This book] says that it contradicts the observations of the orbit of the moon, which rules out a change of exponent of of the required magnitude. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 18:30, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::The contributors to this section might be pleased to see that the issue has been discussed, at great length, right here at Conservapedia. An entire debate page was created for it: [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity%3F]] This was a discussion that spilled over from [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].

::Furthermore, the subject was discussed on the relativity page itself, in the section [[Theory_of_relativity#Experimental_Verification_of_Relativity]]. There is a large chart showing the precessions of the planets under the Newcomb-Hall theory and under general relativity. They are the last two columns of the chart. The actual observations match the last column very well (see [http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm], taking into account that it's very hard to get accurate reading on the outer planets, since their precession is so small.

::One can see that the last two columns of the chart match only for Mercury. That is, Newcomb and Hall "tweaked" the exponent to the value of 2.000000157 in order to get Mercury's precession correct.

::Under the Newcomb-Hall theory, the precession of any orbiting body would be .000000078 revolutions per orbit. This works for Mercury, but is too high for the other planets, and way too high for the Moon. This is why the theory was discarded. With modern artificial satellites, such as the International Space Station, an orbit takes only an hour and a half, and the precession would be enormous. The clearly wrong value for the Moon is why the Newcomb-Hall theory was quickly discarded.

::Under general relativity, we know that the precession per orbit is proportional to the square of the planet's orbital velocity. Mercury has the highest velocity, so it has readily measurable precession. Artificial satellites are much slower, and the Moon is slower still.

::I personally don't see accepting the possible truth of such a thoroughly discredited theory as evidence of open-mindedness, but open-mindedness is admittedly a very tricky issue. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:11, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

::::"Mathematical physicists" (an [[oxymoron]] - I'll add it to the list) insisted that it was impossible for the exponent in Newtonian gravity to be anything other than '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). With the political push to promote the [[Theory of Relativity]], the influence of the mathematical physicists rose too, and that is what shut down the valid inquiry into whether the Newtonian exponent should be '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). But any logical inquiry must admit the possibility, or even the likelihood, that it would not be exactly 2 (or -2).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:31, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

The issue here is not whether the exponent is precisely two or not but that you have to have a model which explains all (or at least as many as possible) observations. To get the precision of Mercury right you produce a model which then fails to explain the observed precession of every other body in the solar system. This seems to be a good experimental demonstration that Newcomb-Hall is wrong (or least inadequate as a model). [[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:32, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] got us on the subject of the Newtonian exponent. My comment makes no mention of it. I'll answer his original question "where's the contradiction?": I quoted two sentences, both containing the phrase "other planets". One sentence said the precession '''can''' be understood by including the effects of the other planets, whereas the other said the precession '''cannot''' be understood that way. It is just rhetoric. The contradiction has little to do with physics. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 12:06, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

OK, how do you explain that adjusting the exponent in Newtonian gravity doesn't account for the orbits of the other planets? You say it has to do with politics. It has nothing to do with politics--the other theory just doesn't work! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:33, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

:I doubt the minor tweak in the exponent would affect the other orbits. The orbit of Mercury would be far more sensitive to such a tweak than anything else.

:The broader question remains: isn't the [[censorship]] of any alternative to the [[Theory of Relativity]] obvious? If the theory were correct, then there would be no need for [[liberals]] to censor debate or alternative theories.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

::*''I doubt the minor tweak in the exponent would affect the other orbits.'' Do you have any calculations which would affirm this belief of yours? AFAIK, Simon Newcomb's and Asaph Hall's idea was discarded when excellent measurements for the Moon were made by Ernest W. Brown which didn't fit the predictions of Newcomb and Hall. This was in the early 20th century...
::*Today Computer simulations allow for an easy test of alternatives to Newton's exponent. Any student should be able to create one and see for himself that it doesn't work out.
::*The influence of the exponent on ''apsidal angles'' was discussed be Newton himself. It's still of interest today: a central system in which the exponent is 1 is easily imaginable (swing a weight on a spring around your head). And you will find publications on these subjects still today.
::That said:
::*Why don't you run a simulation for yourself?
::*''Alternative theories'' are discussed - and mostly discarded. That's the way physics works. Theories doesn't become true because you ''believe'' in them, they become more and more trustworthy when their predictions are verified over and over again.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:40, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

:::The Newcomb-Hall theory doesn't need anyone, liberal or otherwise, to censor it. It censors itself, by being wrong. It has been shown to be wrong many times, including Ernest Brown's observations, and some data published right here at [[Theory of relativity#Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity|Conservapedia]].

:::Probably the best refutation at present is with artificial satellites, since their orbital period is so short. If you want to argue for the Newcomb-Hall theory, your best bet would be to find data showing that the periapsis of the International Space Station precesses by .013 degrees per month. That is an enormous precession, easily observed. The orbital eccentricity is only .001, but, since the ISS is so close and is in constant contact by radio and radar, there should be extremely good data. You should probably contact the author of the [http://www.heavens-above.com/ Heavens Above] web site. It has a huge amount of information on things like this.

:::I think that you will find that what you are up against is not liberals, but facts. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 12:44, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence of article contradicted by the rest ==

Given that main body of the article now largely deals with the things GR can explain (including the precession of Mercury) should not the first sentance be changed?[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:37, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:GR is '''disproven''''' now by the precession of Mercury. See [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

I checked [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] and the number for the observed precession in the note are unreferenced. To be credible there has to be a reference for this number.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 12:11, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

== Nobel Committee Criticism ==

That section of the article criticizes the Nobel Committee for not awarding a prize to a scientist who questions relativity, then immediately notes that no awards have been given for work related to relativity. Perhaps it'd be better to remove this contradiction; pick a poison and stick to it, so to speak. Alternatively, it may be more honest just to remove the section. --[[User:PaPatriot|PaPatriot]]

:What's contradictory about that? It's similar to how the Obama Administration won't appoint anyone who is [[pro-life]], and yet Obama won't campaign on being pro-[[abortion]]. That's not a contradiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:07, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

== Bending of light in Newtonian gravity ==

All right, can someone show me exactly how light is bent by gravity in Newtonian gravity? Photons have zero mass, so, according to Newtonian gravity, they should not feel gravity. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:56, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:*Newton's Corpuscular theory of light didn't state that the mass of the photons is zero. It was just obvious that it is very tiny
:*For the actual calculation, the mass of the photon cancels out
:*[[Johann Georg von Soldner]] did the calculations in 1801 - Newton's theroy was still going strong, then. ([http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Ueber_die_Ablenkung_eines_Lichtstrals_von_seiner_geradlinigen_Bewegung Über die Ablenkung eines Lichtstrals von seiner geradlinigen Bewegung] English: ''On the Deflection of a Light Ray from its Rectilinear Motion''). The predicted effect was to tiny to be observed accurately in his time
:*Newton's corpuscular theory became unpopular since the 1820s, so this line of thought wasn't followed up.
:*Here is a modern re-calculation [http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.1031v6 Bending of light: A classical analysis]
:From Sendler's essay: ''Hoffentlich wird es niemand bedenklich finden, daß ich einen Lichtstral geradezu als schweren Körper behandle. Denn daß die Lichtstralen alle absoluten Eigenschaften der Materie besitzen, sieht man an dem Phänomen der Aberration, welches nur dadurch möglich ist, daß die Lichtstralen wirklich materiel sind. – Und überdies, man kann sich kein Ding denken, das existiren und auf unsere Sinne wirken soll, ohne die Eigenschaft der Materie zu haben. –''
:''Hopefully no one will take offense that I looked at a ray of light as an object of mass. That every ray of light has the absolute properties of matter is seen from the phenomenon of aberration, which is only possible because the rays are really material. — and furthermore, one can think of no thing which exists and interacts with our sense without having the properties of matter.''
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:45, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::Yeah, I've heard of that. But the photon has zero mass. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:20, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Newtonian physics doesn't know about zero-mass particles, hence it doesn't make a unique prediction. One possible interpretation is to say "zero mass -> zero gravitational force -> no bending". Another interpretation is to take the mathematical limit of the equations for ''m''->0. Since ''ma = GMm/r2'', the mass of the photon cancels and you get ''a = GM/r2'', even in the limiting case ''m=''0. This leads to bending by half the amount as predicted by relativity (and observed). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 22:47, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

== Conflation of Relativity and Relativism & Robert H. Dicke & Barack Obama ==

There appears to be significant resistance to relativity that is largely unfounded. The theory is in no way contradictory to Christian beliefs, or religion in general. As a conservative, right wing encycloepdia, I expect resistance to moral relativism.

From reading the article, it appears many of the authorship appear to conflate Einstein's relativity with moral relativism. The two concepts are entirely and utterly unrelated other than both containing the word "relativ". Newton's model of gravity as a simple inverse square law is a very close approximation to Einstein's model. The difference is Newton's is very slightly inaccurate and cannot be used where extreme accuracy is needed. Relativity can.

What's the difficulty with relativity here? The central premise is very basic and seems pretty self evident upon a little thought. There is no absolute frame of reference in a universe in which everything moves relative to everything else. Something can only be defined as moving with respect to (relative to) something else. And there you have it, general relativity.

There is also a problem with the section on Robert H. Dicke. He wasn't a major critic of relativity. Indeed, he developed some of the most stringent tests (relativity is highly falsifiable). It passed them. All.

I tracked down and read the article regarding relativity and law (Obama, etc.). It is quite a nice analogy, and is no way an attempt to use relativity to justify anything. The analogy is more closely related to the uncertainty principle - you cannot measure a particles position without changing or influencing it. You cannot just observe, as you have to intervene in order to do so. The same is true in American law (with a much stronger reliance on test cases, etc, than in say, English law). You cannot deal with one case without it having vast implications for others. That is all the paper is saying. Again, there is no agenda against conservatism or religion in this paper.

[[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:45, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Clocks on Trains - alternative theory ==

Someone better come up with a really good explanation as to why a clock on a train will show a different time to a clock next to the track, after the train has travelled for a length of time. This has been done, and relativity predicted the difference (due to time dilation). If relativity is definitely un-true (the premise of this article), then what IS causing the difference in times?

The above GPS argument makes a similar case, but trains are easier to understand. The difference in time on these clocks has nothing at all to do with quantum physics. Noone try and claim it is, and that they don't have to prove it because it's a logical statement. Anyone who thinks they can logically infer QM (which is inherently illogical by human perception) needs to see a shrink.

[[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:51, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Counterexamples to Recent Experiments ==

Recently, experiments have been published in Science, directly measuring general relativistic time dilation effects using atomic clocks placed about a metre apart. Do we have any idea how to refute this? The reference I provide is to a newspaper summary of the findings [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/einsteins-theory-is-proved--and-it-is-bad-news-if-you-own-a-penthouse-2088195.html]. I have also read the paper and see no loopholes.
--[[User:DanPW|DanPW]] 12:49, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

::We don't need to, and can't, refute this; it is true. This appears to be an update, over a much shorter distance, of the Pound-Rebka experiment of 1960 or so. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 08:27, 15 July 2017 (EDT)

:Probably our best bet is personal attacks on the researcher, Chou, or possibly [[NIST]]. I suspect Chou was not born in this country. He may have an agenda to confuse American citizens. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 14:35, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

== Information and Relativistic Time Dilation? ==

The question is this: are laws of physics the results of predetermined relationships, or are they result of using information?

This seemingly has nothing to do with time dilation, mass increase and such. But it does. Read more about this important question:

[http://www.msg2act.com/physics/ch/index.shtml]

It turns out, there is a connection between information processing and SR/GR time dilation.

In a simplified way, the more information there is, the slower the rate of physical processes.

Antecedent to first concept of physics, main SR/GR results can be derived out of thin air, without postulates.

== Edit of 29 Oct 2014 ==

I think [[User:Dossas]] was right in having the article say what it is before criticizing it. Most pages on science have at least a sentence or two, at the beginning, saying what the subject is.

I have moved the bulk of the criticism (Louis Essen, etc.) up a few paragraphs. The link to his article ''The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis'' was a dead link, but I found two other links that are equally fiery. And I put the "wouldn't get tenure" line into a better contextual place. That is, in with the paragraph about Essen. In fact, his ''Relativity and Time Signals'' paper has a quote at the top: "The theory is so rigidly held that young scientists dare not openly express their doubts" that you might want to put in, illustrating the "wouldn't get tenure" line. Though I haven't done that.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:10, 30 October 2014 (EDT)

== An argument against relativity ==
I think I have a strong (theoretical) argument against the theory of relativity. Is there anyone who could help me by reviewing my stuff, by giving me a professional opinion? May email address: laszlogm@admarc.hu {{unsigned|Laszlogm}}

::I think things like this would be best played out in public. After all, this is a wiki, and Conservapedia has a long history of debating relativity issues openly. But if you really do want to promulgate it in private, my email is near the top of my user page. However, if you go that route, I very well may decide, based on what I see, to make it public somewhere here on CP.
::Your next choice might be simply to publish it directly, either on your own user or talk page, or at the bottom of this page (Talk pages are appended at the end, so they are in forward chronological order).
::Perhaps your best bet, if you are feeling really confident, is to add it to the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. But I should advise you in advance: The bar for counterexamples is rather high, and, unless you really have a correct counterexample, your argument will be figuratively ripped to shreds, the way all the others have been.
::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 13:33, 11 January 2015 (EST)
== Einstein’s Relativity and Relativism: Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a powerful argument for absolute truth. ==

Please read the article [http://evangelicalfocus.com/blogs/1297/Einsteins_Relativity_and_Relativism Einstein’s Relativity and Relativism: Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a powerful argument for absolute truth.] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:55, 11 February 2016 (EST)

== New heading ==

I have rarely laughed out loud as often as I did while reading this article. This must be satire, no? If not then I weep for humanity. {{unsigned|Nikib}}

:Yeah, sure you do. You might weep for closed-mindedness too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 15:15, 2 July 2017 (EDT)

::You may consider it to be satire, but it is not. The story is more complicated than that. Conservapedia is probably the most prominent place on the internet where relativity is treated this way. There is probably no one on the planet that disparages and denies relativity more ferociously than Andy Schlafly. The [[counterexamples to relativity]] page is world-famous, has over 2 million page views, and dominates, by a wide margin, Google searches for the subject. If you think that all of us at CP are anti-relativity, you are wrong.

::You should know that there is sort of a custom at CP, for pages like this, that parts of pages above the table of contents are not to by edited except by Aschlafly, but the material below the table of contents is the consensus (in the usual way for a wiki) of the editor base, and that most editors try to have that part of the page be a factual exposition of the subject. If you would like to contribute to that, feel free. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 15:37, 2 July 2017 (EDT)

== Gravitational time dilation ==

Each rising sun is a synchronization of time, every eclipses synchronize altitudes together from one eclipse to the other. Synchronization of events is incompatible with desynchronization of clocks. I prefer to believe in synchronization of eclipses than in desynchronization of clocks. But that is a choice. If you believe eclipses are desynchronized, it is God will, but you are not in the truth. If there were some (nano)seconds more at high altitudes between eclipses (slower rate), it would mean events happen quicker at low altitude (quicker rate of events in a time dilated frame???). What is your opinion? {{unsigned|Geocentric}}
:My opinion is that the English language is a beautiful and expressive language, and that science is a beautiful and useful pursuit. What I reverted showed a level of English and scientific literacy lower than that of a reasonable 10-year-old.
:Relativity is about fundamental physical truths about space and time, not trivialities about eclipses and sunrises. In any case, the phenomenon of sunrise is known, to anyone with a primary-school education, to be nothing but a manifestation of the rotation of the Earth (relativity!)
:I still do not know whether this person is a willful troll/vandal or is just monumentally ignorant. We certainly have our share of scientific nonsense at Conservapedia, such as [[Gravitation demystified]] and [[Hydroplate Theory]]<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/]</ref>. We don't need any more. I would recommend that this person go away. If this stuff persists, I will recommend that the administrators review this issue and block this user. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 20:27, 21 August 2017 (EDT)

== "Household name" claim ==

What made someone a "household name" is not of scientific interest. The [[fake news]] of the 1919 eclipse, and how media ran with it, hardly seems to be of encyclopedic value in a scientific entry. The implication that [[fake news]] must be true if people believe is not enlightening.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:46, 3 September 2018 (EDT)

:Information about Einstein's rise to fame is admittedly not appropriate for an actual science textbook. A physics textbook would describe Galileo's accomplishments in mechanics (leading to what we now call "Galilean relativity") and astronomy (telescope, moons of Jupiter, etc.) but would probably not discuss in any detail his problems with the Catholic Church.

:However, this an encyclopedia, not a physics textbook, and a certain amount of "fluff" or societal material appears in many CP articles. For example, the articles on Madonna Ciccone, Taylor Swift, Elvis Presley, Johannes Kepler, Stephen Hawking, Marie Curie, William Herschel, Wolfgang Mozart, and Ludwig van Beethoven, to name just a minuscule fraction of our articles, all have "soft" material on why they are famous.

:Like it or not, Einstein is a household name. If it weren't, would you be fighting so hard against him? And he got that way in 1919 because of the eclipse. I happen to disagree that that's his signature achievement. But it's the achievement that, for better or worse, got the headlines and made him a superstar.

:If the eclipse observations had been wrong, that fame would have been taken away. But Eddington's result was right while his methods were wrong.<ref>''Einstein's Luck'', John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9</ref> Eddington lucked out and got away with it, and the flaws in his analysis weren't discovered until decades later with the advent of more rigorous methods for analyzing experiments. By then, extremely precise and properly analyzed data had gotten the same result—the angle of deflection was 1.75 arcseconds.

:It is far better to say that people believed the eclipse news (else how could we explain how Einstein became a household word?) but Eddington's methods were wrong (And this is exactly what our article says!) than to censor that information and leave people in the dark about Einstein's fame.

:Wrong things get said all the time. In the extremely early years of computers, some famous person (can't be bothered to look it up, but you've probably read it too) said that the whole world would have a need for about 5 computers. And don't forget that the US Patent Office was once closed down because nothing more would be invented.

:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 19:05, 3 September 2018 (EDT)

== Numbers for claims about Mercury's precession. ==

ASchlafly compares the relativistic prediction for the precession of Mercury's orbit with observed values and states that "the conflict is greater than the margin of error." However, he does not show what these values are or provide a link to an external reference. Elsewhere on the same page some numbers for observed and predicted anomalous precession are provided, and they appear to be in agreement: the uncertainties overlap. For example, a predicted value of 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century is provided, which does overlap with the provided observed value of 43.13 ± 0.14 arcseconds per century. Interestingly, there is no reference for the predicted value of 42.98 ±0.04. There are values in tables that do not match the values in the references that seem to be associated with the tables as well. Lastly, a formula for the approximation of precession under GR is provided in two places which is off by a factor of 2Π, in the reference frame of the orbiting body in question. Use of that formula as stated provides neither the correct predicted precession per orbit, nor the correct predicted precession per 100 Earth years (which is how the precession is normally presented). It's unclear when the incorrect formula was added to the page or for what purpose. 
If ASchlafly would cite or report the specific numbers that he is comparing, or point to his source for those numbers, his argument could be evaluated. Currently, his claim is in clear conflict with the numbers provided elsewhere on the page. The issue of the incomplete/incorrect formula and possible errors (or incorrect references) in the tables should probably be addressed by a more senior party than myself.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] ([[User talk:Brossa|talk]]) 14:14, 4 September 2018 (EDT)
:Ummm, yeah. I may have gotten the two "approximations" wrong. The one in footnote 46 or so was the approximation in Einstein's paper. The other one was just put together by me as an ''extreme'' back-of-the-envelope rough approximation designed to show how the precession depends on the planet's speed relative to the speed of light, without fussing over the orbital eccentricity. I'll go look at that again. It's made confusing by the need to choose really consistent units (what exactly is the Schwartzschild radius? Are we using c=1 units?). And the standard "theoretical" formulas are in Mercury years, whereas we traditionally describe this in Earth years.
:But keep in mind that the real test is whether the precession ''as observed through telescopes'' and the precession ''as precisely calculated from the Einstein field equations and the Schwartzschild metric'' agree. That's what the error bars are about. The two approximations are just that. You need to solve the equations, and (unlike for Newtonian/Keplerian gravity) that has to be done by computer.
:So I'll look at that and try to clean it up. And not have one of the approximations in the text while another is in a footnote. That's just dumb. Thanks for pointing out the problem. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:32, 4 September 2018 (EDT)
::I've looked it over, and I "sort of" stand by my original formulas. I think things are confused by the symbol "a". In modern relativity textbooks that's the Schwartzschild radius, (also know as the "gravitating radius") but in Einstein's paper it was the semi-major axis of the ellipse. (You remember a and b being the semi-major and semi-minor axes of an ellipse from high school, right? That's what Einstein was using.) Now the reason I say "sort of" is that my supposedly nice approximation of <math>\frac{3GM}{c^2 a(1-e^2)}</math> was already simplified, by me, from what was in Einstein's paper. And that was an approximation in any case. The only way to get the really precise theoretical prediction is to solve numerically for a geodesic, by computer. Thet's what the Pijpers paper is comparing with the experimental measurements. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:17, 5 September 2018 (EDT)
::::I agree that it's an approximation, and a reasonable one for these purposes, but that 3GM/... approximation is ''per radian'' of rotation, so the precession over an entire orbit (2π radians of rotation) is 2π(3GM/....), or <math>\frac{6piGM}{c^2 a(1-e^2)}</math>. That can be converted directly into arcseconds per Earth century. Incidentally, how do you get a π to show up in an equation?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] ([[User talk:Brossa|talk]]) 23:23, 5 September 2018 (EDT)

:::Not even top relativists claim that the advance of the perihelion of Mercury proves the General Theory of Relativity anymore. Once the divergence between more accurate measurements and the theory began occurring nearly 15 years ago, relativists stopped reporting data about this. The Wikipedia entry on this displays a style of everything except confirmation by the data of the theory. Instead, it talks about historical motivation and uses [[liberal style]] like "consistent with" rather than "confirms". Its citations are then more than a decade old. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:13, 5 September 2018 (EDT)
:::::I don't think anyone claims that the perihelion measurements '''prove''' GR. Experiments can only '''refute''' a theory. They can also be '''consistent with''' a theory. When enough experiments, especially experiments that investigate a wide variety of phenomena, are shown to be consistent with the theory, it lends credence to the theory. When no other plausible theory can explain the those observations, we can say that they '''validate''' the theory. The Mercury observations are just one phenomenon. By themselves they couldn't validate or prove GR. And there's another competing theory—the Newcomb-Hall exponent-fudging theory. That one doesn't hold up for things other than Mercury, which helps validate GR. But there are many other supporting observations listed on the page—bending of light, gravitational time dilation, gravitational waves, geodetic precession, Shapiro effect, etc. It is these widely disparate observations that lead people to say that GR is "validated". [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:53, 5 September 2018 (EDT)
::::My question for you was just what the specific numbers you are comparing are, in support of your statement that the conflict is greater than the margin of error. For example: are you comparing the calculated vs. observed numbers for the anomalous precession only from the Pijpers paper, or some other numbers from the Wikipedia article, or some third source? You mention 15 years ago, so are you referring to some data from 2003 or thereabouts? As I said above, the numbers presented on the page here are ''not'' in conflict, so if you are operating with a different set of numbers we should know what those are. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] ([[User talk:Brossa|talk]]) 23:03, 5 September 2018 (EDT)
:::::The Pjpers material was not put in by me. Someone else, maybe AugustO. By the way, I do not copy stuff from Wikipedia; I go straight to the source if possible. If what I've written above is "Wikipedia style", so be it. I don't pay attention to "Wikipedia style"; I just try to use terms correctly and logically.
:::::I have no idea where Andy gets the idea that there are more recent data than those reported by Pijpers, and that are inconsistent with GR. Perhaps Andy should cite that. I'm not aware that "relativists [whatever that means] stopped reporting data" about any such divergence in measurements.
:::::I started to clean up the approximations, but I started getting edit conflicts with Andy, so I'm going to stop for tonight. Be aware that the seemingly obvious way we do things now may not be the way Einstein did things in 1916. In particular, he measured the precession in fractions ''of a full rotation'' rather than in radians. And, of course, it was per Mercury year, not per earth year, so all that stuff needs to be corrected for. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:53, 5 September 2018 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

Talk:Theory of relativity

2020-01-31T18:31:05Z

NgSmith: evidence for maxwells equations is evidence for relativity

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

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

For older discussions, see the archive [[Talk:Theory of relativity/index|index]]. 
|valign="top" style="text-align:right"|[[Image:Conservlogo.png|65px]]
|}


== Special relativity and evidence ==
Many objects have been accelerated to velocities near the speed of light (in particle colliders) and it is easily observed that the rate at which those objects speed up as a constant force is applied is (very precisely) consistent with special relativity and not Gallilean relativity. That is, as their measured speed approaches the speed of light, that speed increases less and less in response to each "push" even though the "pushes" remain the same strength, thus apparently violating Newton's F = ma. On the other hand, Einstein's famous E = gamma * mc^2 appears to describe their rate of acceleration very accurately. I don't understand how this article proposes to surmount that objection. [[User:ZeroThree|ZeroThree]] 15:47, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

What about all the evidence for Maxwell's equations, including electromagnets and radio waves, and all the everyday inventions that demonstrate that these things are real? Maxwell's equations contradict classical physics, and relativity was developed specifically to make Maxwell's equations valid in all reference frames. This includes not only the issue of a constant speed of light, but also magnetic fields arising from "moving" charges, where motion is defined in terms of each observer. Indeed, special relativity can be derived directly from Maxwell's equations. Any confirmation of Maxwell's equations is consistent with relativity and not with Galilean relativity. [[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Fri Jan 31 13:29:34 EST 2020

== Mass depending on direction ==

The article states:
:''There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical.''

As [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] on 8 July 2007 (EDT): ''This paragraph is nonsense [..] The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

The observation sited in the first sentence of this article has been discredited. [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp] It appears that a loose fiber-optics cable is to blame for the misreadings. I suggest editing this first sentence, and any other mention of this in the article.--[[User:CarloP|CarloP]] 18:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)

:Issues concerning the neutrino experiment are not yet fully resolved. No problam: I replaced it with another counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?

Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:''Conservapedia'' seeks the truth, not merely what the [[lamestream media]] claim is the truth. Moreover, once one accepts a logical fallacy, then anything false can be proven from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:: Ahh.... But the fact that the conclusion is false does not necessarily render the basis false. I could say "Andy Schlafly founded Conservapedia and therefore I am a pig monkey." I am not a pig monkey, and even if I were, that has nothing to do with you founding this website. But you still did. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:58, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:When looking around the internet, it is obvious that Conservapedia's classification of relativity as [[pseudoscience]] is a source of some amusement and contempt. Aschlafly, could you please answer the two questions I raised above? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:27, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, liberal peer pressure from "around the internet" does not illuminate the truth. If what liberals on the internet said made a dime's bit of difference, then the [[Bible]] would not be the best selling book (by far) and the percentage of people who are [[conservative]] would not be growing (as it does).

::"Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?" Because it's false, it confuses people, it misleads people into stop reading the Bible, and its orthodoxy interferes with the advancement of science for the benefit of all. Other than that, it's not a bad theory!

::"Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition?" The only bias is by liberals who shout down any criticism of the theory. If the theory were so clearly true, then there would be no need for some liberals to rely on [[censorship]] in propping it up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I note that anyone using a GPS is relying on the Theory of Relativity being true, since calculations derived from Relativity are used within a GPS. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:GPS does '''''not''''' rely on the [[Theory of Relativity]], and this has been thoroughly explained on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Hi Aschlafly, I've located at least some of the discussion re GPS in the archives of this talk page, and there a lot of references for me to examine before I can make any further serious comments; certainly there are some references which appear to state that GPS relies on relativity. Can you perhaps draw my attention to what you consider the most important (half-dozen or so) references which indicate that the GPS system does NOT rely on relativity so that I have somewhere to start from? In the meantime I'll continue editing and improving less controversial articles as I have been doing for the last two months (my talk page lists nearly 40 articles I can usefully contribute to). [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:::This note 7 is on [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]:

::::Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

:::The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing: the small effects claimed by the special and general theories nearly cancel each other out for orbiting satellites. From an engineering perspective, it makes far more sense simply to adjust the clocks using synchronization rather than relying on (dubious) theoretical claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Another false claim because of sloppy reading: In the same source by The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, you can find how the authors Fliegel and DiEsposti describe what is happening to the clocks in the satellites:
''Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45 × 10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec. (p. 193).

The text is about the necessity of ''further'' corrections by the ''operational control system'' - there are corrections ''already'' installed in the clocks!

''The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing:'' This sentence is wrong. It has shown to be wrong a couple of times, so it starts to become a lie. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:12, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Theory of Relativity]] was not used to develop GPS, nor would it be sensible to waste time and money doing so. Synchronization is cheaper, simpler, and more reliable. The above quote does not contradict this obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

::The fact that these offsets are implemented in the clocks '''in accord with the theory of relativity''' as you can read in the very source you quoted shows that the [[Theory of Relativity]] is used in the GPS - and this from the very beginning of the project! Please, start to read your sources - completely! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:37, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Please, before we get into any more debate, could someone supply some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:41, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly took his quote from [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti (though he probably isn't aware of this). The paper is about relativistic effects due to moving GPS-'''''receivers''''' (or GPS-receivers in high altitudes) and comes to the conclusion, that at the moment, they don't have to include additional relativistic corrections.

:Aschlafly interprets this as if ''no'' relativistic corrections are implemented in the GPS.
:However, in the paper itself, you will find the section I quoted above, where the authors describe such very corrections within the clocks of the satellites.
:I'm afraid that Aschlafly won't come up with ''some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS'' as there aren't any.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:53, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Folks, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the [[Theory of Relativity]] was used to design GPS. That burden includes describing who, when, where, how, and why. It didn't happen. And if it did, the person who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:It looks to me as if you are trying to put impossible conditions prior to any debate. To avoid a lengthy debate all you have to do is produce some actual references which support your point of view. Is this too much to ask?

:If it didn't happen then you should be able to produce some evidence of this, so '''some actual references please'''. The only 'evidence' you have produced so far is an out-of-context quote from a paper which is concerned primarily with GPS receivers (that same paper mentions the use of relativity-related adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellite transmitters). Surely you must have more than this. Will you accept evidence from engineers and companies involved in designing and building the GPS system? If not, why not? Who would you accept evidence from? The US Department of Defense? Do you seriously expect a member of the public to be able to access internal design documents as your "who, when, where, how, and why" statement implies?

:If you care to check my contribution history you will see that I am actively contributing non-controversial information to articles. This discussion re GPS etc. is only a small part of my activities on Conservapedia. Since I've barely started on considering and consolidating what evidence there is re GPS I would rather have a week or so to look at the evidence before getting into a debate. This should give you ample time to come up with some references to support the separation of GPS and relativity. Simple searches via Google turn up numerous instances where relativity is claimed to be relevant to GPS, but I can't find anything to the contrary and '''I need your help to do so'''. I would really like to see evidence from '''both sides''' of the discussion before entering the debate, so '''some actual references please'''. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 19:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, you're requesting proof that something didn't happen. Moreover, someone with an engineering background (such as myself) would not expect it to have happened. It is like asking for a reference that no green cheese was found on the Moon. No such scientific reference is likely to exist, nor would anyone expect such a reference to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:28, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:: Every single article on GPS says that relativistic adjustments are made to the satellite clocks. Some give the formulas and some give quantitative data on the adjustments. Textbooks explain why the adjustments are necessary. I don't see any reason to doubt that GPS uses relativistic adjustments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:52, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::GPS does make synchronizing adjustments. Call them whatever you like, but those adjustments are not made based on predictions by the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Indeed, it would be a silly waste of time and money to synchronize in such a manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Unless you drive the flying Delorean from ''Back to the Future'', relativity would say that its effect on your car when you're driving at normal speeds is so small it need not be accounting for. The normal error for GPS (about 40 feet) is many magnitudes higher than the error relativity would cause. Now, the GPS in the Flying DeLorean would be another issue. But until that's invented, let's not worry about it, ok? Of course, if you were orienteering, your speed would be even slower than if you were driving. Indeed, if you were moving at any normal speed (even a supersonic jet), relativity would be incredibly small (assuming that it exists as scientists explain it). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:14, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::''GPS does make synchronizing adjustments'' Not only simple synchronizing: read the specifications for the GPS, read the sources ''in full'' which you are quoting, and you will see that all these engineers and scientists don't give a damn that you think that they are wasting ''time and money''.
:::::Aschlafly, your position is only tenable as you are willing to ignore most of the data which is presented to you. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you believe very firmly that relativity has nothing to do with GPS, even though you are unwilling to present any evidence to support this belief, and wish to put severe restrictions on what 'proof' of the relationship other folks may present. I raised some five questions above as to what sort of evidence you might consider. Could you please answer these questions.

::I'd like to ask Mr. Schafly if he could explain what the clock adjustments on GPS satellites are for, the article is not clear, and neither is anything on this talk page.--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:44, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Cahnkj, herewith a summary of the clock-adjustment situation as I (RolandPlankton) see it. Newton's equations of motions say nothing about how clocks keep time. Einstein's equations of relativity imply that identical clocks will vary in their timekeeping (tick at different rates) if they are travelling at different speeds, or if they are at different heights in a gravitational field, or if they are subject to different accelerations; see [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview]. Now the satellites used in the GPS system require very accurate clocks which are in step with ground-based clocks. The paper just quoted provides the various relativistic equations which apply - the satellites are travelling faster than a ground-based receiver, and are at a different height in a gravitational field. Prior to launch the clocks in the GPS satellites are deliberately set to a different tick rate from ground-based clocks, so that when they are in orbit the clocks will appear to tick at the same rate; the difference in tick rates is about 38 nanoseconds per day, and this adjustment can be calculated from the relevant relativistic equations.

:::But the problem is that Aschlafly rejects the Theory of Relativity, and hence rejects any calculation based on that. The only serious argument he has put forth on this current talk page (see preceding section) is an appeal to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Truth the truth]; the quote he provides above is also demolished above. You may wish to consult [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], which is rebutted point by point in [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].

:::Hope this doesn't add too much to the confusion. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 12:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Mr. Schlafly states above that "the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the Theory of Relativity was used to design GPS." (This is a fair requirement, and it seems as this has been done when AugustO referred to the Fliegel and DiEsposti paper above.)

::::But really, isn't the burden of proof on anyone who claims ''anything'' on this site, since Conservapedia Commandment #1 states that "everything you post must be true and verifiable" and Commandment #2 states that users should "always cite and give credit to <nowiki>[their]</nowiki> sources?" --[[User:AndreaM|AndreaM]] 19:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Good point. Anyone who asserts ''on this site'' that GPS was designed based on the [[Theory of Relativity]] needs to prove the claim. Note that the claim is implausible because it is cheaper, easier, and more precise to synchronize GPS based on observations rather than theoretical speculation. Also note that no [[Nobel Prize]] has been given for verification of the [[Theory of Relativity]] with GPS.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:55, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::Whether GPS was designed based on Relativity or not may be irrelevant. Whether or not Relativity is necessary for the clocks to run efficiently and accurately, also irrelevant. Observations of the satellites are still consistent with the predictions of General and Special Relativity as evidenced here: http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp. Please not that this is an article by the same Tom Van Flandern quoted on this site as saying that relativity is unnecessary for GPS calculations, so I trust this is a source you will accept. Here he is saying here that while relativity may be UNNECESSARY for those calculations, it is still CONFIRMED by our observations.[[User:Williagz|Gus Williams]] 14:03, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

===A Separate Question for Mr. Schlafly About References===

::Aschlafly, as a separate issue, in view of of your apparent attitude to references, could I ask you to have a look at the articles I have been working on over the last two months: [[Pi]], [[Programming language]], [[Compiler]], and the work-in-progress [[Chomsky hierarchy]]. Obviously I'm only asking you to consider the changes I have made. In particular, can you check if the references are acceptable to you, and can you also check that the general style and level of writing is in accordance with Conservapedia's aims? The next article I intend to turn my intention to is [[Context-Free Grammar]], since it seems to me that this fails to satisfy [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]] "Articles on complex topics need an introduction which assumes little or no previous knowledge". [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:03, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Roland, your good edits are appreciated and I've seen no complaints about them. I agree that the [[Context-Free Grammar]] would benefit from a better introduction and look forward to reading what you add there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

===READ THE MANUAL===
This debate seems pretty ridiculous, given that GPS is a public system with open specifications. If you're building a GPS receiver you do, in fact, need to compensate for relativistic effects. The correction equations that must be used on the receiving side equipment are given in the official GPS interface specification, IS-GPS-200G [http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200G.pdf], p.92. section 20.3.3.3.3.1: User Algorithm for SV Clock Correction.

<blockquote>
The polynomial defined in the
following allows the user to determine the effective SV PRN code phase offset referenced to the
phase center of the antennas with respect to GPS system time (t) at the time of data
transmission. The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the two frequency
user for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This estimated
correction accounts for the deterministic SV clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as
well as for the SV implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential
group delay. '''Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function'''...
</blockquote>
I did not include the equations here, but they're given in the manual. --[[User:Smac56|Smac56]] 16:54, 7 December 2014 (EST)

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

A good question was raised above: if synchronization to GPS is not due to the [[Theory of Relativity]], then what is it due to?

And the answer is simply this: [[quantum mechanics]]. There are fundamental uncertainties, and those uncertainties will lead to clock differences. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible. It isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

Where to start with this. This is so bad it isn't even wrong. Could I respectfully suggest that you confine your efforts to areas you understand at least a little bit.

The impossibility of perpetual motion has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. It comes from the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics and predates quantum mechanics by at least 100 years.

The uncertainty principle is also completely irrelevant. If we imagine a 100 kg satellite moving at a velocity of approximately 100 km/s (this is three times the earth's velocity , so is a plausible and easy to handle number). If we know the satelites location to an uncertainty of 1cm then the uncertainty on its velocity implied by the uncertainty principle is 1 part in 10^39 (i.e. completely negligable).[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 13:10, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

:Well, this is progress indeed. Could you please provide references to support the contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects?

:Also, as an aside, how do you say that fundamental uncertainties described by quantum mechanics relate to the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine? Not sure I follow you there. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 23:36, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::It's basic logic. Unless someone denies [[quantum mechanics]] and the fundamental uncertainties it describes -- and many [[Relativists]] do deny it -- then synchronization will be required as a logical result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Do you have any references? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I haven't looked ... nor is it necessary to. I wouldn't look for references to confirm any logical statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Really? Is it fair to say then that this contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects is not something that you have read about but rather something that you yourself concluded from your own knowledge of quantum mechanics and GPS systems? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::P.S. As a result of this discussion I found a couple of articles which appear to confirm that GPS satellites have their clocks adjusted by about 38,000 nanoseconds per day before launch in compliance with relitavistic predictions (both Special and General Relativity are taken into account). The articles are [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp here] and [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html here]. Is there really any question that this is what is happening? I would think that if these sources are to be questioned that some sort of reference should be provided. A mere assertion that the adjustments are as a result of quantum mechanical effects and that it is a matter of logic would not usually be enough for any serious encyclopedia. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::The references are [[hearsay]]. Logic is far more compelling, more efficient, and more likely to lead to the correct result.

::::::To take the analogy mentioned above, if you agree that [[perpetual motion machines]] are impossible, what is the reason?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:45, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Quantum mechanics gives a probabilistic model of phenomena. Indeed, the page you linked for quantum mechanics states:
::"If we measure such an observable, generally the wave function does not predict exactly which value we will obtain. Instead, the wave function gives us the probability that a certain value will be obtained."
:If this is the case, that means that Quantum mechanical phenomena are ''unpredictable''. How is it that clock adjustments can be made based on unpredictable events, ie, probabilities?
:I'd also like to know how the GPS system is affected by these phenomena.
:--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 01:51, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Logic is a nice thing. But engineers like to calculate. So could you give us a Ballpark estimate for the quantum mechanic effects which come into play here? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:(Edit conflict x2) Andy, as a lawyer I can assure you that hearsay is a [[legal]] concept which is of little use in this sort of scientific discussion. Whilst I understand that non-legally trained people sometimes confuse the nature and applicability of the concept, I can confirm that it has no relevance here.

:The difficulty here arises from your wanting to assert the truth of a matter without providing either references or even the basis for you own logic. Just saying "quantum mechanics" is hardly enlightening. Do you deny that GPS satellite clocks are adjusted by approximately 38,000 nanoseconds as referred to in the references that I provided? If not, do you say that there is a quantum calculation that accounts for that adjustment? What is that quantum calculation and what is it based on? I am really having difficulty in understanding the basis for all of this. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 02:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, this reference [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] has been pointed out to you several times already. Since it is published by folks actually working on the GPS system, I hardly think that it qualifies as 'hearsay'. It contains all the relevant relativistic equations, which are not really that complicated, and derives the 38 nanosecond figure quoted above. An assertion on scientific matters without any evidence can't really be taken seriously. Can we please see the quantum mechanical equations and calculations which come up with the same or similar result? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, I'm inclined to suspect that your disbelief in relativity is so strong that you are unwilling to consider any evidence which might indicate that relativity could be correct, and are hence flailing around looking for some other explanation as to what actually happens (GPS clock adjustment by 38 ns). Would you care to comment on my suspicion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 09:49, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Quote: "A logical statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false." [http://www.ontotext.com/factforge/logical-statement].

So Aschlafly, why don't you need a reference to confirm a logical statement? Just because a statement is logical doesn't mean that it is true. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

: It would be helpful to have a more modern reference. GPS switched to a system of daily updates to the satellites. Maybe those relativistic formulas cause errors that require daily clock synchronizations to correct. Not likely. But to prove the point we ought to find a reference that says that the satellites still use the 38 ns/day relativistic adjustments, and that the daily corrections are much smaller than that. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:18, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::The best I've found so far is [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf] from Physics Today, May 2002. This confirms the initial adjustment and mentions further on page 7: "Additional small frequency offsets arise from clock drift, environmental changes, and other unavoidable effects such as the inability to launch the satellite into an orbit with precisely the desired semimajor axis. The satellite clock frequencies are adjusted so that they remain as close as possible to the frequency of the Naval Observatory's clock ensemble." Unfortunately it doesn't give the actual size of the adjustments, thought the word 'small' does indicate it as being much less than the initial adjustment. I rather like the last sentence of this paper: "Ordinary users of the GPS, though they may not need to be aware of it, have thus become dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:26, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The lack of evidence, amid so much political pressure to prove it, is indicative that no proof can be found. Notice how no [[Nobel Prize]]s have been given for GPS confirming the [[Theory of Relativity]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:01, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::If you want to use the [[Nobel Prize]] as evidence against relativity, might I direct you to:
:::http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/relativity/
:::Where the official Nobel Prize website discusses various experiments related to relativity, and the relevant [[Nobel Prize]]s awarded for them.
:::--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:32, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::::GPS is not even on that overly broad list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, I've tried to confine my evidence to items which not even you can claim as 'hearsay'. A simple Google search turns up hundreds of references linking GPS and relativity, but in view of your earlier dismissal of such as hearsay, I thought I'd better stick to indisputable items. At least there is some fairly convincing evidence linking GPS with relativity (including all the relevant equations and the result of applying these equations), unlike your assertion linking GPS with quantum mechanics, where you have produced precisely zero evidence. You still haven't responded to my comments and question re 'logical statements' above. So, where is the evidence for your assertion? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 02:46, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:::There is no credible evidence that the [[Theory of Relativity]] had anything to do with the development of GPS. In addition, not even the pro-Relativity [[Nobel Prize]] [[liberals]] say that GPS proves the theory.

:::My comment about [[quantum mechanics]] was in response to a question about why synchronization is needed. Unless someone thinks that [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible (have you answered my question about that?), then synchronization will be needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Could you please clarify what the connection between synchronisation, quantum mechanics and perpetual motion machines is? From what I've learned, clock synchronisation between the satellites is necessary because any signal between them travels at a finite speed, namely the speed of light. Do you deny that? The claim is that in order to compute the signal travel time and thus to synchronize the clocks correctly, the relative velocities and the differences in gravitational potential due to the different altitudes of the satellites (and Earth's surface) have to be taken into account. Do you think that is wrong? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:56, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

Lets stick to the subject (GPS and relativity); perpetual motion is a complete red herring, and I'm not sure how Nobel prizes come into the picture (we're debating science, not prizes).
On the basis of '''actual evidence produced''' in this discussion so far, I think that we can confidently state four facts:
#Prior to launch, the clock in a GPS satellite is set to run about 38 nanoseconds/day different from an otherwise identical clock on the earth's surface.
#When in orbit the GPS clock then appears to tick at the same rate as an identical clock on the earth's surface.
#Equations based on the theory of relativity accurately come up with this figure of around 38 nanoseconds.
#No evidence has been produced to show how quantum mechanics is involved.

If anyone disagrees with any of the above, they need to bear in mind ('''emphasis''' added):
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 1 Everything you post must be true and '''verifiable'''.
:from Conservapedia:Commandments 2 '''Always cite''' and give credit to your sources.
:from Conservapedia:Guidelines/Reliability 4 A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated.

Hope this summary helps. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:41, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

: That is the story as I have heard it. Except that I heard that the 38 ns/day adjustment was remotely switchable, because of relativity skeptics who did not believe that it would be necessary. I also don't agree that GPS is "dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time." The GPS system has the ability to measure the daily adjustments that it needs. So even with any relativity theory or Einstein conception, it could just make those 38 ns/day adjustments and GPS would have all the accuracy it has today. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::In the summary I was careful to stick to facts supported by evidence, and to avoid saying "GPS is dependent on Einstein's conception of space and time", even though the two main references I have quoted do in fact say this. All I said was that the adjustment calculated according to relativity agrees with the actual adjustment, from which one might reasonably conclude, in this instance at least, that relativity is consistent with reality. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 15:44, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I note that no one has proposed any credible alternative theory as to why the orbiting clocks tick at a different speed from surface clocks, so until some better theory comes along I'm quite happy to stick with relativity. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:00, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:In the last week, apart from one clarification question from [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], no one has challenged the 'four facts' summary I provided above. According I will shortly move a copy of this summary along with the relevant references in to the talk pages of other relevant articles, and will then update those articles to match. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 13:36, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Beware: in your fact #1, the correction is 38 '''micro'''seconds, not '''nano'''seconds. See [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html]. My own rough calculations also agree that it's microseconds. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 15:05, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

::Well spotted, Judy. I've gone back to one of the sources and it is indeed 38 microseconds. Thank you for the correction. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:10, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
All right, can Andy Schlafly explain how adjusting the exponent in the law of gravity accounts for the orbits of the other planets? You know the reason why no one considers that as an alternative? Are you ready?! '''Because it doesn't work!''' And can you tell me why Einstein came up with GR? Was it to explain the orbit of Mercury? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 21:36, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:::In response to your first question, the reason is purely political. Any grad student who suggests that tweaking the exponent in Newtonian mechanics is an interesting approach worth more attention will thereby eliminate his chances for obtaining a PhD.

:::In response to your second point, GR was tweaked to explain the Mercury perihelion precession, but now the more precisely observed data fail to match the theory. Grad students and Nobel Prize wannabes are clever enough to keep quiet about it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:56, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

Andy: You make an interesting point about people not thinking that the Newcomb/Hall theory of planetary precession is an interesting approach—I hadn't thought about that aversion. I'm not sure why you think that people who take an interest in that theory would eliminate their chances of getting a PhD—people take an interest in historical aspects of science all the time. I can think of a few discarded scientific theories that are commonly discussed in science classes: The Ptolemaic theory of the solar system, the "plum pudding" model of the atom, and the phlogiston theory of combustion come to mind. The first two are very commonly taught in science classes. I think this is because they do a very good job of illustrating the scientific method and the value of careful analytical thinking. The phlogiston theory also illustrates careful thinking, but it isn't discussed in science classes nearly as much. My guess is that this is because it's harder to visualize. You can easily make a diagram in a textbook of the epicycles of Ptolemy and the ellipses of Kepler. And the model of electrons circling the nucleus, as per the Rutherford atom, is pretty much the logo for all things atomic. Lavoisier's (and others') experiments with combustion don't make for as dramatic an illustration.

The Simon Newcomb / Asaph Hall theory of planetary precession, unfortunately, seems to be even less photogenic. The effect being explained, 43 arcseconds per century, may be hard to get sudents excited about. But I doubt whether anyone jeopardizes their academic or research careers by being interested in it.

Idea: How about if I write some articles about the 4 theories (Ptolemy/Kepler, pudding/Rutherford, phlogiston/oxidation, and Newcomb/Einstein)? We could create a category for discarded scientific theories.

But I won't get to it any time soon. I'm very busy at Ameriwiki.

By the way, I have to thank you for the "E=mc^2" article. It really sharpened my thinking about the issues involved in special relativity, and it contributed to the outline of the articles I'm writing at Ameriwiki.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:40, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

::: Ugh, the reasons GPS devices don't contain the "rigorous transformations" that relativity "would seem to require" is very simple. The satellites are in geosynchronous orbits, and the difference in time that relativity causes only need to be calculated once. From then on, it's simply a case of adding a few ns every day to the satellite clocks to account for this. I would've thought that was obvious to an expert. And only an expert should be attempting to write authoratively on the theory of relativity! A certificate in physics does not an expert make. [[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 15:09, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

== Logic and the GPS ==

*Atomic watches work on the Earth quite fine
*[[Quantum mechanics]] describe the physics of ''very small length and energy scales''
*Satellites are macroscopic objects.
*Even a precision of 1cm on the surface of the Earth isn't a very small length.

So which kind of logic tells us that quantum mechanical effects influence the synchronization of the clocks? Why are not only the scientists involved lying, but also their calculations?

For me it seems to be a logical conclusion that you, Aschlafly, are even more knowledgeable of Greek than of Science! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:He's trying to apply the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle to satellites? Are you kidding me? That principle is used for things at the ATOMIC LEVEL! Using ANYTHING with regards to quantum mechanics in an argument about satellites is absurdism and/or ignorance of the subject matter! Seriously Andy, I know you hate the Theory of Relativity, but you should really leave science to those who understand it. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 16:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::For someone who thinks that Brownian motion is about motion at the sub-atomic level your suggestions of scientific superiority ring hollow.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 10:15, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

== Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession ==

I removed the phrase "[precession can be understood by] factoring in the gravitational pull due to other planets". The first sentence of that paragraph says the opposite, that the extra precession cannot be understood "even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets". Unless I'm reading it wrong, it sounded like a contradiction. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 16:51, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

:Where is the contradiction? If the exponent in Newtonian gravity is slightly adjusted, then it predicts the Mercury precession.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:01, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

::I'm curious as to the justification for changing a formula in Newtonian gravity. Do you change it for every situation, or just for this one special case? Can you give us the adjusted formula, and specify the exact change? For such a change in physics which has been in use for over 250 years I would like to see a reference, preferably several good references. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:25, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
:::The old Newcomb-Hall hypothesis. [http://books.google.at/books?id=oKGlHjDzGjQC&lpg=PA379&dq=newcomb%20hall%20precession&pg=PA379#v=onepage&q=newcomb%20hall%20precession&f=false This book] says that it contradicts the observations of the orbit of the moon, which rules out a change of exponent of of the required magnitude. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 18:30, 13 April 2012 (EDT)
::The contributors to this section might be pleased to see that the issue has been discussed, at great length, right here at Conservapedia. An entire debate page was created for it: [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity%3F]] This was a discussion that spilled over from [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness]].

::Furthermore, the subject was discussed on the relativity page itself, in the section [[Theory_of_relativity#Experimental_Verification_of_Relativity]]. There is a large chart showing the precessions of the planets under the Newcomb-Hall theory and under general relativity. They are the last two columns of the chart. The actual observations match the last column very well (see [http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm], taking into account that it's very hard to get accurate reading on the outer planets, since their precession is so small.

::One can see that the last two columns of the chart match only for Mercury. That is, Newcomb and Hall "tweaked" the exponent to the value of 2.000000157 in order to get Mercury's precession correct.

::Under the Newcomb-Hall theory, the precession of any orbiting body would be .000000078 revolutions per orbit. This works for Mercury, but is too high for the other planets, and way too high for the Moon. This is why the theory was discarded. With modern artificial satellites, such as the International Space Station, an orbit takes only an hour and a half, and the precession would be enormous. The clearly wrong value for the Moon is why the Newcomb-Hall theory was quickly discarded.

::Under general relativity, we know that the precession per orbit is proportional to the square of the planet's orbital velocity. Mercury has the highest velocity, so it has readily measurable precession. Artificial satellites are much slower, and the Moon is slower still.

::I personally don't see accepting the possible truth of such a thoroughly discredited theory as evidence of open-mindedness, but open-mindedness is admittedly a very tricky issue. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:11, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

::::"Mathematical physicists" (an [[oxymoron]] - I'll add it to the list) insisted that it was impossible for the exponent in Newtonian gravity to be anything other than '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). With the political push to promote the [[Theory of Relativity]], the influence of the mathematical physicists rose too, and that is what shut down the valid inquiry into whether the Newtonian exponent should be '''''precisely''''' 2 (or -2). But any logical inquiry must admit the possibility, or even the likelihood, that it would not be exactly 2 (or -2).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:31, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

The issue here is not whether the exponent is precisely two or not but that you have to have a model which explains all (or at least as many as possible) observations. To get the precision of Mercury right you produce a model which then fails to explain the observed precession of every other body in the solar system. This seems to be a good experimental demonstration that Newcomb-Hall is wrong (or least inadequate as a model). [[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:32, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] got us on the subject of the Newtonian exponent. My comment makes no mention of it. I'll answer his original question "where's the contradiction?": I quoted two sentences, both containing the phrase "other planets". One sentence said the precession '''can''' be understood by including the effects of the other planets, whereas the other said the precession '''cannot''' be understood that way. It is just rhetoric. The contradiction has little to do with physics. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 12:06, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

OK, how do you explain that adjusting the exponent in Newtonian gravity doesn't account for the orbits of the other planets? You say it has to do with politics. It has nothing to do with politics--the other theory just doesn't work! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:33, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

:I doubt the minor tweak in the exponent would affect the other orbits. The orbit of Mercury would be far more sensitive to such a tweak than anything else.

:The broader question remains: isn't the [[censorship]] of any alternative to the [[Theory of Relativity]] obvious? If the theory were correct, then there would be no need for [[liberals]] to censor debate or alternative theories.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

::*''I doubt the minor tweak in the exponent would affect the other orbits.'' Do you have any calculations which would affirm this belief of yours? AFAIK, Simon Newcomb's and Asaph Hall's idea was discarded when excellent measurements for the Moon were made by Ernest W. Brown which didn't fit the predictions of Newcomb and Hall. This was in the early 20th century...
::*Today Computer simulations allow for an easy test of alternatives to Newton's exponent. Any student should be able to create one and see for himself that it doesn't work out.
::*The influence of the exponent on ''apsidal angles'' was discussed be Newton himself. It's still of interest today: a central system in which the exponent is 1 is easily imaginable (swing a weight on a spring around your head). And you will find publications on these subjects still today.
::That said:
::*Why don't you run a simulation for yourself?
::*''Alternative theories'' are discussed - and mostly discarded. That's the way physics works. Theories doesn't become true because you ''believe'' in them, they become more and more trustworthy when their predictions are verified over and over again.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:40, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

:::The Newcomb-Hall theory doesn't need anyone, liberal or otherwise, to censor it. It censors itself, by being wrong. It has been shown to be wrong many times, including Ernest Brown's observations, and some data published right here at [[Theory of relativity#Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity|Conservapedia]].

:::Probably the best refutation at present is with artificial satellites, since their orbital period is so short. If you want to argue for the Newcomb-Hall theory, your best bet would be to find data showing that the periapsis of the International Space Station precesses by .013 degrees per month. That is an enormous precession, easily observed. The orbital eccentricity is only .001, but, since the ISS is so close and is in constant contact by radio and radar, there should be extremely good data. You should probably contact the author of the [http://www.heavens-above.com/ Heavens Above] web site. It has a huge amount of information on things like this.

:::I think that you will find that what you are up against is not liberals, but facts. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 12:44, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

== First sentence of article contradicted by the rest ==

Given that main body of the article now largely deals with the things GR can explain (including the precession of Mercury) should not the first sentance be changed?[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 15:37, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

:GR is '''disproven''''' now by the precession of Mercury. See [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

I checked [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] and the number for the observed precession in the note are unreferenced. To be credible there has to be a reference for this number.[[User:Jloveday|Jloveday]] 12:11, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

== Nobel Committee Criticism ==

That section of the article criticizes the Nobel Committee for not awarding a prize to a scientist who questions relativity, then immediately notes that no awards have been given for work related to relativity. Perhaps it'd be better to remove this contradiction; pick a poison and stick to it, so to speak. Alternatively, it may be more honest just to remove the section. --[[User:PaPatriot|PaPatriot]]

:What's contradictory about that? It's similar to how the Obama Administration won't appoint anyone who is [[pro-life]], and yet Obama won't campaign on being pro-[[abortion]]. That's not a contradiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:07, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

== Bending of light in Newtonian gravity ==

All right, can someone show me exactly how light is bent by gravity in Newtonian gravity? Photons have zero mass, so, according to Newtonian gravity, they should not feel gravity. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:56, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:*Newton's Corpuscular theory of light didn't state that the mass of the photons is zero. It was just obvious that it is very tiny
:*For the actual calculation, the mass of the photon cancels out
:*[[Johann Georg von Soldner]] did the calculations in 1801 - Newton's theroy was still going strong, then. ([http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Ueber_die_Ablenkung_eines_Lichtstrals_von_seiner_geradlinigen_Bewegung Über die Ablenkung eines Lichtstrals von seiner geradlinigen Bewegung] English: ''On the Deflection of a Light Ray from its Rectilinear Motion''). The predicted effect was to tiny to be observed accurately in his time
:*Newton's corpuscular theory became unpopular since the 1820s, so this line of thought wasn't followed up.
:*Here is a modern re-calculation [http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.1031v6 Bending of light: A classical analysis]
:From Sendler's essay: ''Hoffentlich wird es niemand bedenklich finden, daß ich einen Lichtstral geradezu als schweren Körper behandle. Denn daß die Lichtstralen alle absoluten Eigenschaften der Materie besitzen, sieht man an dem Phänomen der Aberration, welches nur dadurch möglich ist, daß die Lichtstralen wirklich materiel sind. – Und überdies, man kann sich kein Ding denken, das existiren und auf unsere Sinne wirken soll, ohne die Eigenschaft der Materie zu haben. –''
:''Hopefully no one will take offense that I looked at a ray of light as an object of mass. That every ray of light has the absolute properties of matter is seen from the phenomenon of aberration, which is only possible because the rays are really material. — and furthermore, one can think of no thing which exists and interacts with our sense without having the properties of matter.''
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:45, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
::Yeah, I've heard of that. But the photon has zero mass. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:20, 26 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Newtonian physics doesn't know about zero-mass particles, hence it doesn't make a unique prediction. One possible interpretation is to say "zero mass -> zero gravitational force -> no bending". Another interpretation is to take the mathematical limit of the equations for ''m''->0. Since ''ma = GMm/r2'', the mass of the photon cancels and you get ''a = GM/r2'', even in the limiting case ''m=''0. This leads to bending by half the amount as predicted by relativity (and observed). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 22:47, 26 June 2012 (EDT)

== Conflation of Relativity and Relativism & Robert H. Dicke & Barack Obama ==

There appears to be significant resistance to relativity that is largely unfounded. The theory is in no way contradictory to Christian beliefs, or religion in general. As a conservative, right wing encycloepdia, I expect resistance to moral relativism.

From reading the article, it appears many of the authorship appear to conflate Einstein's relativity with moral relativism. The two concepts are entirely and utterly unrelated other than both containing the word "relativ". Newton's model of gravity as a simple inverse square law is a very close approximation to Einstein's model. The difference is Newton's is very slightly inaccurate and cannot be used where extreme accuracy is needed. Relativity can.

What's the difficulty with relativity here? The central premise is very basic and seems pretty self evident upon a little thought. There is no absolute frame of reference in a universe in which everything moves relative to everything else. Something can only be defined as moving with respect to (relative to) something else. And there you have it, general relativity.

There is also a problem with the section on Robert H. Dicke. He wasn't a major critic of relativity. Indeed, he developed some of the most stringent tests (relativity is highly falsifiable). It passed them. All.

I tracked down and read the article regarding relativity and law (Obama, etc.). It is quite a nice analogy, and is no way an attempt to use relativity to justify anything. The analogy is more closely related to the uncertainty principle - you cannot measure a particles position without changing or influencing it. You cannot just observe, as you have to intervene in order to do so. The same is true in American law (with a much stronger reliance on test cases, etc, than in say, English law). You cannot deal with one case without it having vast implications for others. That is all the paper is saying. Again, there is no agenda against conservatism or religion in this paper.

[[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:45, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Clocks on Trains - alternative theory ==

Someone better come up with a really good explanation as to why a clock on a train will show a different time to a clock next to the track, after the train has travelled for a length of time. This has been done, and relativity predicted the difference (due to time dilation). If relativity is definitely un-true (the premise of this article), then what IS causing the difference in times?

The above GPS argument makes a similar case, but trains are easier to understand. The difference in time on these clocks has nothing at all to do with quantum physics. Noone try and claim it is, and that they don't have to prove it because it's a logical statement. Anyone who thinks they can logically infer QM (which is inherently illogical by human perception) needs to see a shrink.

[[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:51, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Counterexamples to Recent Experiments ==

Recently, experiments have been published in Science, directly measuring general relativistic time dilation effects using atomic clocks placed about a metre apart. Do we have any idea how to refute this? The reference I provide is to a newspaper summary of the findings [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/einsteins-theory-is-proved--and-it-is-bad-news-if-you-own-a-penthouse-2088195.html]. I have also read the paper and see no loopholes.
--[[User:DanPW|DanPW]] 12:49, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

::We don't need to, and can't, refute this; it is true. This appears to be an update, over a much shorter distance, of the Pound-Rebka experiment of 1960 or so. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 08:27, 15 July 2017 (EDT)

:Probably our best bet is personal attacks on the researcher, Chou, or possibly [[NIST]]. I suspect Chou was not born in this country. He may have an agenda to confuse American citizens. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 14:35, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

== Information and Relativistic Time Dilation? ==

The question is this: are laws of physics the results of predetermined relationships, or are they result of using information?

This seemingly has nothing to do with time dilation, mass increase and such. But it does. Read more about this important question:

[http://www.msg2act.com/physics/ch/index.shtml]

It turns out, there is a connection between information processing and SR/GR time dilation.

In a simplified way, the more information there is, the slower the rate of physical processes.

Antecedent to first concept of physics, main SR/GR results can be derived out of thin air, without postulates.

== Edit of 29 Oct 2014 ==

I think [[User:Dossas]] was right in having the article say what it is before criticizing it. Most pages on science have at least a sentence or two, at the beginning, saying what the subject is.

I have moved the bulk of the criticism (Louis Essen, etc.) up a few paragraphs. The link to his article ''The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis'' was a dead link, but I found two other links that are equally fiery. And I put the "wouldn't get tenure" line into a better contextual place. That is, in with the paragraph about Essen. In fact, his ''Relativity and Time Signals'' paper has a quote at the top: "The theory is so rigidly held that young scientists dare not openly express their doubts" that you might want to put in, illustrating the "wouldn't get tenure" line. Though I haven't done that.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:10, 30 October 2014 (EDT)

== An argument against relativity ==
I think I have a strong (theoretical) argument against the theory of relativity. Is there anyone who could help me by reviewing my stuff, by giving me a professional opinion? May email address: laszlogm@admarc.hu {{unsigned|Laszlogm}}

::I think things like this would be best played out in public. After all, this is a wiki, and Conservapedia has a long history of debating relativity issues openly. But if you really do want to promulgate it in private, my email is near the top of my user page. However, if you go that route, I very well may decide, based on what I see, to make it public somewhere here on CP.
::Your next choice might be simply to publish it directly, either on your own user or talk page, or at the bottom of this page (Talk pages are appended at the end, so they are in forward chronological order).
::Perhaps your best bet, if you are feeling really confident, is to add it to the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. But I should advise you in advance: The bar for counterexamples is rather high, and, unless you really have a correct counterexample, your argument will be figuratively ripped to shreds, the way all the others have been.
::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 13:33, 11 January 2015 (EST)
== Einstein’s Relativity and Relativism: Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a powerful argument for absolute truth. ==

Please read the article [http://evangelicalfocus.com/blogs/1297/Einsteins_Relativity_and_Relativism Einstein’s Relativity and Relativism: Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a powerful argument for absolute truth.] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:55, 11 February 2016 (EST)

== New heading ==

I have rarely laughed out loud as often as I did while reading this article. This must be satire, no? If not then I weep for humanity. {{unsigned|Nikib}}

:Yeah, sure you do. You might weep for closed-mindedness too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 15:15, 2 July 2017 (EDT)

::You may consider it to be satire, but it is not. The story is more complicated than that. Conservapedia is probably the most prominent place on the internet where relativity is treated this way. There is probably no one on the planet that disparages and denies relativity more ferociously than Andy Schlafly. The [[counterexamples to relativity]] page is world-famous, has over 2 million page views, and dominates, by a wide margin, Google searches for the subject. If you think that all of us at CP are anti-relativity, you are wrong.

::You should know that there is sort of a custom at CP, for pages like this, that parts of pages above the table of contents are not to by edited except by Aschlafly, but the material below the table of contents is the consensus (in the usual way for a wiki) of the editor base, and that most editors try to have that part of the page be a factual exposition of the subject. If you would like to contribute to that, feel free. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 15:37, 2 July 2017 (EDT)

== Gravitational time dilation ==

Each rising sun is a synchronization of time, every eclipses synchronize altitudes together from one eclipse to the other. Synchronization of events is incompatible with desynchronization of clocks. I prefer to believe in synchronization of eclipses than in desynchronization of clocks. But that is a choice. If you believe eclipses are desynchronized, it is God will, but you are not in the truth. If there were some (nano)seconds more at high altitudes between eclipses (slower rate), it would mean events happen quicker at low altitude (quicker rate of events in a time dilated frame???). What is your opinion? {{unsigned|Geocentric}}
:My opinion is that the English language is a beautiful and expressive language, and that science is a beautiful and useful pursuit. What I reverted showed a level of English and scientific literacy lower than that of a reasonable 10-year-old.
:Relativity is about fundamental physical truths about space and time, not trivialities about eclipses and sunrises. In any case, the phenomenon of sunrise is known, to anyone with a primary-school education, to be nothing but a manifestation of the rotation of the Earth (relativity!)
:I still do not know whether this person is a willful troll/vandal or is just monumentally ignorant. We certainly have our share of scientific nonsense at Conservapedia, such as [[Gravitation demystified]] and [[Hydroplate Theory]]<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/]</ref>. We don't need any more. I would recommend that this person go away. If this stuff persists, I will recommend that the administrators review this issue and block this user. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 20:27, 21 August 2017 (EDT)

== "Household name" claim ==

What made someone a "household name" is not of scientific interest. The [[fake news]] of the 1919 eclipse, and how media ran with it, hardly seems to be of encyclopedic value in a scientific entry. The implication that [[fake news]] must be true if people believe is not enlightening.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:46, 3 September 2018 (EDT)

:Information about Einstein's rise to fame is admittedly not appropriate for an actual science textbook. A physics textbook would describe Galileo's accomplishments in mechanics (leading to what we now call "Galilean relativity") and astronomy (telescope, moons of Jupiter, etc.) but would probably not discuss in any detail his problems with the Catholic Church.

:However, this an encyclopedia, not a physics textbook, and a certain amount of "fluff" or societal material appears in many CP articles. For example, the articles on Madonna Ciccone, Taylor Swift, Elvis Presley, Johannes Kepler, Stephen Hawking, Marie Curie, William Herschel, Wolfgang Mozart, and Ludwig van Beethoven, to name just a minuscule fraction of our articles, all have "soft" material on why they are famous.

:Like it or not, Einstein is a household name. If it weren't, would you be fighting so hard against him? And he got that way in 1919 because of the eclipse. I happen to disagree that that's his signature achievement. But it's the achievement that, for better or worse, got the headlines and made him a superstar.

:If the eclipse observations had been wrong, that fame would have been taken away. But Eddington's result was right while his methods were wrong.<ref>''Einstein's Luck'', John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9</ref> Eddington lucked out and got away with it, and the flaws in his analysis weren't discovered until decades later with the advent of more rigorous methods for analyzing experiments. By then, extremely precise and properly analyzed data had gotten the same result—the angle of deflection was 1.75 arcseconds.

:It is far better to say that people believed the eclipse news (else how could we explain how Einstein became a household word?) but Eddington's methods were wrong (And this is exactly what our article says!) than to censor that information and leave people in the dark about Einstein's fame.

:Wrong things get said all the time. In the extremely early years of computers, some famous person (can't be bothered to look it up, but you've probably read it too) said that the whole world would have a need for about 5 computers. And don't forget that the US Patent Office was once closed down because nothing more would be invented.

:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 19:05, 3 September 2018 (EDT)

== Numbers for claims about Mercury's precession. ==

ASchlafly compares the relativistic prediction for the precession of Mercury's orbit with observed values and states that "the conflict is greater than the margin of error." However, he does not show what these values are or provide a link to an external reference. Elsewhere on the same page some numbers for observed and predicted anomalous precession are provided, and they appear to be in agreement: the uncertainties overlap. For example, a predicted value of 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century is provided, which does overlap with the provided observed value of 43.13 ± 0.14 arcseconds per century. Interestingly, there is no reference for the predicted value of 42.98 ±0.04. There are values in tables that do not match the values in the references that seem to be associated with the tables as well. Lastly, a formula for the approximation of precession under GR is provided in two places which is off by a factor of 2Π, in the reference frame of the orbiting body in question. Use of that formula as stated provides neither the correct predicted precession per orbit, nor the correct predicted precession per 100 Earth years (which is how the precession is normally presented). It's unclear when the incorrect formula was added to the page or for what purpose. 
If ASchlafly would cite or report the specific numbers that he is comparing, or point to his source for those numbers, his argument could be evaluated. Currently, his claim is in clear conflict with the numbers provided elsewhere on the page. The issue of the incomplete/incorrect formula and possible errors (or incorrect references) in the tables should probably be addressed by a more senior party than myself.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] ([[User talk:Brossa|talk]]) 14:14, 4 September 2018 (EDT)
:Ummm, yeah. I may have gotten the two "approximations" wrong. The one in footnote 46 or so was the approximation in Einstein's paper. The other one was just put together by me as an ''extreme'' back-of-the-envelope rough approximation designed to show how the precession depends on the planet's speed relative to the speed of light, without fussing over the orbital eccentricity. I'll go look at that again. It's made confusing by the need to choose really consistent units (what exactly is the Schwartzschild radius? Are we using c=1 units?). And the standard "theoretical" formulas are in Mercury years, whereas we traditionally describe this in Earth years.
:But keep in mind that the real test is whether the precession ''as observed through telescopes'' and the precession ''as precisely calculated from the Einstein field equations and the Schwartzschild metric'' agree. That's what the error bars are about. The two approximations are just that. You need to solve the equations, and (unlike for Newtonian/Keplerian gravity) that has to be done by computer.
:So I'll look at that and try to clean it up. And not have one of the approximations in the text while another is in a footnote. That's just dumb. Thanks for pointing out the problem. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:32, 4 September 2018 (EDT)
::I've looked it over, and I "sort of" stand by my original formulas. I think things are confused by the symbol "a". In modern relativity textbooks that's the Schwartzschild radius, (also know as the "gravitating radius") but in Einstein's paper it was the semi-major axis of the ellipse. (You remember a and b being the semi-major and semi-minor axes of an ellipse from high school, right? That's what Einstein was using.) Now the reason I say "sort of" is that my supposedly nice approximation of <math>\frac{3GM}{c^2 a(1-e^2)}</math> was already simplified, by me, from what was in Einstein's paper. And that was an approximation in any case. The only way to get the really precise theoretical prediction is to solve numerically for a geodesic, by computer. Thet's what the Pijpers paper is comparing with the experimental measurements. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:17, 5 September 2018 (EDT)
::::I agree that it's an approximation, and a reasonable one for these purposes, but that 3GM/... approximation is ''per radian'' of rotation, so the precession over an entire orbit (2π radians of rotation) is 2π(3GM/....), or <math>\frac{6piGM}{c^2 a(1-e^2)}</math>. That can be converted directly into arcseconds per Earth century. Incidentally, how do you get a π to show up in an equation?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] ([[User talk:Brossa|talk]]) 23:23, 5 September 2018 (EDT)

:::Not even top relativists claim that the advance of the perihelion of Mercury proves the General Theory of Relativity anymore. Once the divergence between more accurate measurements and the theory began occurring nearly 15 years ago, relativists stopped reporting data about this. The Wikipedia entry on this displays a style of everything except confirmation by the data of the theory. Instead, it talks about historical motivation and uses [[liberal style]] like "consistent with" rather than "confirms". Its citations are then more than a decade old. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:13, 5 September 2018 (EDT)
:::::I don't think anyone claims that the perihelion measurements '''prove''' GR. Experiments can only '''refute''' a theory. They can also be '''consistent with''' a theory. When enough experiments, especially experiments that investigate a wide variety of phenomena, are shown to be consistent with the theory, it lends credence to the theory. When no other plausible theory can explain the those observations, we can say that they '''validate''' the theory. The Mercury observations are just one phenomenon. By themselves they couldn't validate or prove GR. And there's another competing theory—the Newcomb-Hall exponent-fudging theory. That one doesn't hold up for things other than Mercury, which helps validate GR. But there are many other supporting observations listed on the page—bending of light, gravitational time dilation, gravitational waves, geodetic precession, Shapiro effect, etc. It is these widely disparate observations that lead people to say that GR is "validated". [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:53, 5 September 2018 (EDT)
::::My question for you was just what the specific numbers you are comparing are, in support of your statement that the conflict is greater than the margin of error. For example: are you comparing the calculated vs. observed numbers for the anomalous precession only from the Pijpers paper, or some other numbers from the Wikipedia article, or some third source? You mention 15 years ago, so are you referring to some data from 2003 or thereabouts? As I said above, the numbers presented on the page here are ''not'' in conflict, so if you are operating with a different set of numbers we should know what those are. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] ([[User talk:Brossa|talk]]) 23:03, 5 September 2018 (EDT)
:::::The Pjpers material was not put in by me. Someone else, maybe AugustO. By the way, I do not copy stuff from Wikipedia; I go straight to the source if possible. If what I've written above is "Wikipedia style", so be it. I don't pay attention to "Wikipedia style"; I just try to use terms correctly and logically.
:::::I have no idea where Andy gets the idea that there are more recent data than those reported by Pijpers, and that are inconsistent with GR. Perhaps Andy should cite that. I'm not aware that "relativists [whatever that means] stopped reporting data" about any such divergence in measurements.
:::::I started to clean up the approximations, but I started getting edit conflicts with Andy, so I'm going to stop for tonight. Be aware that the seemingly obvious way we do things now may not be the way Einstein did things in 1916. In particular, he measured the precession in fractions ''of a full rotation'' rather than in radians. And, of course, it was per Mercury year, not per earth year, so all that stuff needs to be corrected for. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:53, 5 September 2018 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

2016-07-12T00:58:31Z

NgSmith: Adding to number 16: this discontinuity exists in Newtonian physics

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

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

#''Computer simulations based on the theory of relativity predict far more black holes than are observed''.
#:The cited article says absolutely nothing about the ''number'' of black holes, modeled or observed. It is about a discrepancy between computer models predicting the ''masses'' of black holes at the centers of galaxies and the observed masses. The article suggests a heretofore-unmodeled mechanism whereby galaxy evolution would cause less mass to go into the black holes. The article in no way suggests that black holes don't exist.
#''Quasars are disappearing, contrary to the theory of relativity''.
#:Relativity does not predict quasars; relativity was formulated in 1905, and quasars weren't discovered until the 1950's. The word "relativity" does not occur anywhere in the cited article.
#:While quasars are associated with black holes, no serious scientist believes that black holes don't exist or that relativity is wrong.
#:That astronomers have stopped looking for this phenomenon, after finding more than 10 examples of it, may or may not have been a wise decision regarding the allocation of telescope and satellite time.
#''The orbital radius of the Moon's orbit is increasing, contrary to what Relativity predicts''.
#:This could be a counterexample to both GR and Newtonian gravity—in both, the radius is defined in terms of conserved quantities.
#::The objection has been raised that this would still be a counterexample to Relativity.
#:::Yes, if it were actually true that the Moon's orbit is undergoing some kind of anomalous perturbation, it would indeed be a disproof of Relativity, Newtonian mechanics, and, in fact, all of physics since Galileo.
#::::Actually, the average radius of the Moon's orbit is in fact increasing. By 38mm a year. This was first predicted in the late 19th century and actually measured since at least the early 1970's and more accurately thereafter thanks to the mirrors left for that purpose by the Apollo astronauts. The reason for this is well-known and simple enough to be explained on science-oriented TV shows from time to time. To put it simply: the Moon pulls on the Earth, causing the tides and slowing down its rotation slightly, lengthening it's day by 2 milliseconds every 100 years. Reciprocally, the Earth pulls on the Moon and accelerates it slightly thus increasing the height of its orbit and energy is conserved. For a more complete explanation see.<ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124</ref> This behavior, predicted over 100 years ago, observed and measured, is in no way "anomalous" and relativity, general, special or otherwise doesn't really concern itself with tidal mechanics so on that point at least physics, Galilean, Newtonian and [[Albert Einstein|Einsteinian]], are quite safe for now.
#''The Pioneer anomaly.''
#:The "Pioneer anomaly" is the deviation in the motion of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft from their predicted motion, at the distance of Saturn and beyond. It should be noted that the anomaly is about 1000 times greater than the difference between the classical Newtonian prediction and the prediction of relativity, so this is not a problem with relativity ''per se''; it is more general than that.
#:Calculating the force caused by heat (that is, miniscule amounts of infrared radiation) from the radioactive power source was one of the first effects that was examined. The anomaly arose when this and other known effects could not fully explain the deviation.
#:The problem is believed to have been solved by taking into account the reflection of the radiation from the power source off of the back of the antenna dish.<ref>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/</ref> The solution is sometimes described as an application of "Phong shading", a technique of computer graphics that is now considered imprecise. But Phong shading itself is not what is important. The "ray tracing" computer graphics technique that underlies Phong shading was what inspired the scientists to take reflection into account.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly</ref>
#:<blockquote>The most detailed analysis to date, by some of the original investigators, explicitly looks at two methods of estimating thermal forces, then states "We find no statistically significant difference between the two estimates and conclude that once the thermal recoil force is properly accounted for, no anomalous acceleration remains."<ref name="thermal">{{cite journal|doi=10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.241101|title=Support for the Thermal Origin of the Pioneer Anomaly|year=2012|last1=Turyshev|first1=Slava G.|last2=Toth|first2=Viktor T.|last3=Kinsella|first3=Gary|last4=Lee|first4=Siu-Chun|last5=Lok|first5=Shing M.|last6=Ellis|first6=Jordan|journal=Physical Review Letters|volume=108|issue=24|arxiv = 1204.2507 |bibcode = 2012PhRvL.108x1101T|pmid=23004253|pages=241101}}</ref></blockquote>
#''the solar flattening is ... too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation.''
#:This observation is interesting, but the predictions of oblateness come from analysis of fluid mechanics; relativity is not involved, and the cited paper makes no mention of relativity.
#:
#:We expect a very large rotating body to show oblateness according to well-known principles involving centrifugal force. This is particularly easy to observe with Jupiter, though the other planets, including Earth, show it too. Scientists do not know why the Sun exhibits nearly zero oblateness, but relativity is not believed to be the cause.
#:
#:Now it happens that there ''is'' a connection between solar oblateness and the calculation of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and that involves General Relativity. When checking the observed precession against the effect predicted by Relativity, one needs to subtract the effect of solar oblateness, along with the other effects, such as equinoctial precession and the gravitational effects of other planets. The effect of solar oblateness is a mere .0254 arcseconds per century, insignificant in comparison with precession (about 5500) and other planets' gravity (about 550). The figure of .0254 was calculated based on what fluid dynamics predicted, and was subtracted in the figures quoted below in item #9. When that tiny effect is removed, the error bars still overlap that for the GR prediction.
#''Quantum entanglement near the event horizon of a black hole ....''
#:It is well known that quantum gravity (that is, the "Theory of Everything") is an unsolved problem, and it is the subject of much discussion in the physics community. The whole topic of string theory, for example, revolves around this. Among the places where General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics collide most notoriously is within the Planck length of a black hole's event horizon. Among the issues involved is the notion of "quantum loss of information", that was the subject of a famous bet among Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, and John Preskill. (Hawking and Thorne lost.) Basically, physicists do not know just what happens within quantum-mechanical distances (the Planck length) of a black hole. But no one doubts the behavior of black holes at reasonable distances, or, for that matter, General Relativity at reasonable distances.[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|
*"I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional [[Atheism|atheist]] whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." - [[Albert Einstein]]<ref name="Isaacson390">Isaacson, Walter (2008). [http://books.google.com/books?id=cdxWNE7NY6QC&pg=PT390 ''Einstein: His Life and Universe''] (New York: Simon and Schuster), p. 390. Retrieved from GoogleBooks archive on February 19, 2015.</ref>]]
#''The speed of light in a vacuum is slower than expected''
#:
#:It is unfortunate that, whenever a sensational-headline-hungry writer writes anything relating to the propagation of light, they are tempted to scream something along the lines of "Einstein proved wrong." Such sensationalist headlines can be seen in both the popular press and here at Conservapedia.
#:
#:But relativity never said anything about vacuum polarization.
#:
#:The factor "c" appearing in equations of relativity (E=mc^2, the Lorentz factor, etc.) is the calibration constant for space vs. time. While it was perceived as the "speed of light" back in 1905, that depended on the classical theory of light, from Faraday, Maxwell, et. al., at that time. Under the classical theory, Maxwell's equations were considered to be '''exactly''' correct, and light was considered to travel at '''exactly''' the speed indicated by those equations, which speed is denoted "c". The speed "c" would be better described as "that speed that all observers, even those in relative motion, will consider to be the same." The experimental basis for relativity (Michelson-Morley experiment) was that light obeyed that property. That, plus the fact that "c" appears in Maxwell's equations in a way that makes it independent of an observer's state of motion, made it clear that "c" was in fact the speed of light. But that depended on the belief that Maxwell's equations were exactly correct. But that was before Quantum Mechanics and gauge interactions. Under Quantum Mechanics, the propagation of light is determined by the behavior of photons, not by Maxwell's field equations. Of course the two results are almost identical, as is required by the Correspondence Principle. But, under the modern "Standard Model" of Quantum Electrodynamics, photons can interact with the vacuum, due to "vacuum polarization", leading to extremely tiny higher-order corrections to the equations governing the behavior of photons. This can cause photons to travel at a speed slower than "c".
#:
#:Now the situation is made more complex by the fact that models of supernova behavior indicate that the light is emitted after the neutrinos, because the neutrinos are emitted at the instant of the core collapse, and the light must wait until the effect of the collapse reaches the surface. After taking that into account, the cited article says that the extra delay for supernova SN1987A was 4.7 hours. That discrepancy is only 53 parts per trillion, and hence can only be observed in light from very distant supernovas.
#:
#:Calculating the speed of the neutrinos is interesting, because the observation is that light traveled '''slower''' than the neutrinos, even though neutrinos have nonzero mass. Since neutrinos do not participate in the electromagnetic interaction, they are not subject to the same vacuum polarization as photons. Their retardation comes only from their mass and the normal equations of relativity.
#:
#:Taking the mass of an electron neutrino as 0.25 eV (using the usual E=mc^2 formula that all scientists use for this), a neutrino would have to have a kinetic energy of about 0.025 MeV to experience a retardation of 53 parts per trillion. Since the energy of astronomical neutrinos is generally believed to be in the range of 0.5 to 20 MeV (it's really hard to measure) the expected retardation of the neutrinos from SN1987A is much '''less''' than that of the light.
#:
#:It's interesting that the issue of whether neutrinos travel faster than light actually '''did''' come up in another round sensationalist headline-grabbing articles, from an experiment at Gran Sasso, in the popular press and here at Conservapedia. The first headline was that neutrinos traveled '''faster''' than light, a claim retracted after a cable was fixed, but then reported here that someone (erroneously) had said they had traveled at '''exactly the same speed''' as light, which also violates relativity because neutrinos have nonzero mass. In any case, that discrepancy would have been several orders of magnitude too small to measure in the Gran Sasso experiment, and the discrepancy from vacuum polarization several orders of magnitude smaller still.
#''Celestial signals defy Einstein''.
#:It shouldn't be surprising that, when Einstein died nearly 60 years ago, he didn't know ''everything'' that there is to know about spacetime. Newton didn't know everything there is to know about calculus (Hilbert spaces) or classical mechanics (Lissajous orbits), and Bohr and Schrödinger didn't know everything there is to know about Quantum mechanics (entanglement). What Einstein knew, at the time, about spacetime was how to give a precisely relativistically correct formula for how matter and energy (and momentum and stress) give curvature to spacetime, which in turn gives rise to gravity. These equations have been confirmed, with great accuracy, repeatedly.
#:
#:Einstein's equations are known to work for "ordinary" interactions at the planetary and galactic level, but don't work at the quantum level, and may not be fully correct at the deep cosmic level. The cited article says "Every object there is, from a planet orbiting the sun to a rocket coasting to the moon or a pencil dropped carelessly on the floor, follows its [spacetime's] imperceptible contours." This is a confirmation of what Einstein said. The article says that there may be more subtlety to spacetime than was previously known. Of course this has been hinted at for some time with recent developments in cosmology. "Breaking relativity" is an unfortunate choice of subtitle.
#''Relativity breaks down at high energies''.
#:This is interesting. We look forward to seeing whether this plays out the same way that the supraluminal neutrinos did. Until then, note that the discrepancy, 33 picoradians, is such that, if you were to shine a laser beam at the Sun, with that amount of angular error, it would miss its target by about 5 meters. We hope the author will explain how he measured an angle that precisely.
#''Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity. The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement''.
#:This is an interesting observation. The world's best scientific minds are looking into it. That relativity is incorrect is not being taken seriously as a possible explanation.
#:'''Update:''' The problem seems to have been caused by a faulty cable connection between a computer and a GPS unit. When the connection was repaired, the travel time increased by 60 nanoseconds, which had been the amount of the anomaly.<ref>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/22/technology-faster-than-light-neutrinos.html</ref><ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/22/loose-wire-led-to-stunning-faster-than-light-particle-finding/?intcmp=features</ref> The claims of faster-than-light neutrinos have now been refuted very thoroughly.<ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html</ref><ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/once-again-physicists-debunk.html</ref>
#:The objection has been raised that a recent news report from the BBC ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is also contradictory, since neutrinos have mass and are therefore forbidden by relativity to travel at exactly the speed of light. Since the neutrino energies were 17GeV, and the current estimate for the neutrino mass is about 0.25eV, the deviation from the speed of light would be about 1 part in 1022. This means that the neutrinos would arrive at the detector about .26x10−24 seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is one quarter of a billionth of a femtosecond, or about .26x10−15 of a nanosecond. The accuracy of the GPS units and cesium clocks used in the measurement is greater than a nanosecond, so the discrepancy cannot possibly be detected. It is unfortunate that the claim "the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos" was taken so literally.
#:::A "counter-rebuttal" has been made: ''The politicized rush to rehabilitate the Theory of Relativity was far from convincing, and the "resolution" was a clear statement that is flatly contrary to the Theory''. Just what statement is being referred to as the "resolution" is not clear, but our best guess is that it is the statement by Sandro Centro, quoted by Jason Palmer in the cited BBC article. As noted above, that statement is in error by about 15 orders of magnitude less than the resolution of the measurement. None of the assertions of relativity denies that anyone could ever make a statement that is not precisely correct.
#''Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").''
#:This may be another case of the Pioneer anomaly, or it may be something else. However, it is very unlikely that it shows that relativity is wrong and Newtonian mechanics is correct. Saying that, every time someone finds some phenomenon that is puzzling, that shows that relativity is wrong, is not a convincing way to do science. The cited paper is about unexpected behavior of some spacecraft as they use "gravity assists" in near-Earth flybys. The hypothesized causes involve errors in the mathematical models to calculate such effects as relativistic effects (the detailed calculation of them, not the question of whether they exist), tidal effects, Earth radiation pressure, or atmospheric drag. The paper suggests that most of those can be ruled out, though there could be round-off and integration errors, or errors in the spherical harmonic representation of Earth's gravity field.
#''Spiral galaxies confound Relativity, and unseen "dark matter" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it due to the acceleration of various parts of galaxies that accelerated funny that led to dark matter (based on simple Newtonian dynamics)?
#''The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds Relativity, and unseen "dark energy" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.''
#:This is the dark energy/cosmological constant argument. The cosmological constant was added by Einstein after he discovered that his field equations (<math>\mathbf{G}=8\pi \mathbf{T}</math>) predicted that the universe was expanding, contradicting his firm philosophical belief in a static universe. So he inserted <math>\Lambda \mathbf{g}</math> to the LHS so that it would predict a static universe. A few years later, Hubble showed the universe to be expanding, and Einstein called the cosmological constant the worst mistake of his career. So, it sort of had a bad reputation, and people didn't want to seriously consider it, until recent observations have shown the universe's expansion to be accelerating forced them to do so. It could have had a very different history. Einstein could have had that term in the EFE's from the start, and pointed out that it would determine if the universe's expansion was accelerating (or not expanding at all!) and it would take further observation to determine its value.
#''Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.''
#:A footnote goes on to say that "In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01) ..."
#:Considering only the ''anomalous'' precession, that is, the precession that remains after all known other factors (other planets and asteroids, solar oblateness) have been accounted for, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values are:
#::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
#::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
#::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
#::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
#::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijpers 2008]]
#:These error bars, and that of the relativity formula, all overlap.
#:The formula for mechanics under general relativity is complicated, but it is not contrived or conformed. "Conformed" suggests that it was somehow adjusted or "tweaked" to match the 42.98 figure. The formula is
#:::<math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>
#:To begin to explain the formula, Newton's law of gravity, combining F = ma and <math>F = \frac{KMm}{r^2}\,</math>, is
#::<math>a = \frac{KM}{r^2}\,</math>
#:In Einstein's equation, <math>T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "stress-energy tensor", and <math>8 \pi T_{\mu\nu}\,</math> gives the density of the Sun, taking the place of <math>\frac{M}{r^2}\,</math>. <math>G_{\mu\nu}\,</math> is the "Einstein curvature tensor", and says how spacetime curves to create an apparent gravitational acceleration.
#:There is nothing to tweak to get a value of 42.98 arcseconds. 8 is 8. <math>\pi\,</math> is <math>\pi\,</math>. K is Newton's constant of gravitation in both formulas.
#:
#::::The above discussion notwithstanding, more sophisticated technology has measured a precession of 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01, which disproves the prediction of the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Notice how publication of data stopped two decades ago when the observations diverged from the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
#:Measurements of planetary motion are now calculated relative to the "International Celestial Reference Frame" (ICFR), replacing the older, and much less accurate "equinoctial" frame. The older measurements got a value of about 5600 arcseconds/century for the precession of Mercury, nearly all of which (5025 arcseconds) was because of the rotation of the "equinoctial" frame. The ICFR frame removes that source of uncertainty, and, with the very accurate radar measurements conducted by NASA between 1987 and 1997,<ref>http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf</ref> gets a value of 574.10±0.65 arcseconds observed, in good agreement with the predicted 574.64±0.69 value.
#:The ICFR is described in [http://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Publications/TechnicalNotes/tn32.html this] document, dated 2003.
#::'''REPLY:''' The year 1997 was nearly 20 years ago, and the observed data based on increasingly sophisticated technology was diverging from relativity's predictions even then. Recent data on this is not published because it would further disprove relativity and embarrass relativists who cling to the theory.
#:
#:::The cited Jurgens-Rojas-Slade-Standish-Chandler paper was published in April 1998, so it should come as no surprise that their data came to an end in 1997. They probably decided that, after collecting data for 10 years, it was time to publish. This is common in the scientific community. Galileo's experiment involving cannonballs and the Leaning Tower of Pisa is no longer being conducted. The Stern-Gerlach experiment (just to pick one random example) was conducted only a small number of times before being published. People don't continue to conduct it to see whether spin quantization of Silver atoms still occurs.
#:
#:::More recent Mercury data, particularly from the MESSENGER space probe, have provided positional data vastly better than anything Leverrier could have dreamed of. (In fact, Because of the many interplanetary spacecraft of the last few decades, we now have a huge amount of incredibly accurate data on a large number of bodies in the Solar System.) Perhaps Andy believes that the scientific community has been remiss in not continuing to analyze these Mercury data to the present day, presumably looking for evidence of whether relativity is true or false.
#:
#:::Perhaps Andy could provide his own ideas about why, other than relativity, the precession occurs. This would not just be a matter of quibbling over 42.98 and 42.99, but of explaining the discrepancy between 42.99 and zero. This point was brought up on the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Community_Portal/Archive_1#Two_millionth_page_view_for_the_.22Counterexamples_to_Relativity.22_page Community Portal] in December, with no reply forthcoming.
#:
#:::Of course, even absent an alternative theory, showing a discrepancy between observation and theory would be interesting.
#:
#:::Now a possible approach, if one believes that the data are inconsistent with relativity, would be to bring the subject up in the many internet forums devoted to physics. One might be able to find out what further analyses are being done, suggest new analyses, or find out how to get the data to make one's own analysis.
#:
#:::Getting to the specific points of the note above, we are not aware of any evidence that the data were diverging from the theory back in 1997; perhaps Andy could provide supporting data. We see no evidence that the data exist but have not been published, and we see no evidence that any such lack of publication arises because it would embarrass anyone. Seeing discussion of these points in an internet physics forum might help clear these matters up.
#:
#:::It's one thing to speculate on science; it's quite another to speculate on the motives of scientists, particularly the idea that scientists are embarrassed by their knowledge that relativity is wrong, and that they are covering up this embarrassment as part of some political agenda.
#::::REPLY: The relativists' silence in the journals about increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury is akin to the famous story of the dog that didn't bark, which is itself compelling proof.
#:::::You can't just invoke the Sherlock Holmes ''Silver Blaze'' story to support any claim you wish to make. In that story, Holmes knew that the guilty person had to have been in a certain house at a certain time. The dog would have barked if that person had been a stranger, because dogs bark at strangers. Therefore, the villain was in his own house. There was a specific and credible chain of logic from the non-barking dog to the identification of the guilty party.
#:
#:::::In the perihelion case, there is abundant orbital data (undoubtedly gigabytes of it) for the various planets and moons. Some of it was in the Jurgens ''et al'' paper noted above, and other data was analyzed in the Pijpers paper. That paper, by the way, says "The value of the gravitational quadrupole moment (28) when combined with planetary ranging data for the precession of the orbit of Mercury yields a value [...] which is consistent with GR ..."
#:
#:::::There is actually a very simple explanation for the scientific community's silence on this matter, a deduction of which Mr. Holmes would approve: The reason that no one is publishing data or analyses that claim to refute relativity is that such claim would be false, and that the existing analyses, using exquisitely accurate spacecraft data, are correct.
#:
#''Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found. Sound like global warming?''
#:True, the ''direct'' searches for gravitational waves have not yet yielded any clear results, though indirect observations have been made (the Hulse/Taylor observations.) Before people dismiss indirect observations, recall that no one has ever seen an electron.
#:The Earth-based LIGO detectors have, so far, not detected any unambiguous gravitational wave signatures from such events as a black-hole merger. It is barely sensitive enough to find such things in the Milky Way or very nearby galaxies. It is being upgraded in a plan that should complete in 2014. It is hoped that, after the upgrade, it will be able to see these events clearly and unambiguously.
#:The space-based LISA detectors have not been built yet, and the original proposal has been scrapped because of budgetary problems. A new version, called "eLISA" has been proposed, and should be sensitive to events as far away as redshift 15.
#:Whether these experiments are a good use of money is another question, one that has no bearing on whether relativity is correct.
#::The objection has been raised that the experiments should not have been funded if scientists were going to ignore negative results.
#:::The results are only partly negative. The scientists knew all along that a certain amount of luck would be involved in finding a sufficiently strong signal within the time frame of the experiment. The failure so far does not mean that black-hole mergers do not emit gravitational waves; just that they haven't been lucky enough to find them. They will continue to search.
#:'''Update:''' Another, much more commonplace observation of gravitational wave emission has been reported.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19408363 BBC article</ref> The article suggests that, since it shows detectable gravitational waves are more common than previously thought, there is optimism that the eLISA detector, when completed, might find one source per week.
#:
#:This has nothing to do with global warming.
#''The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.''
#:The formulas for velocity, momentum, and mass can in fact be written in such a way that they appear to have discontinuities, just as the tangent function has discontinuities while the underlying sine and cosine functions do not. But they can also be written in a form that does not show discontinuities.
#:All particles, with or without mass, can have any value of momentum. The formula for the velocity of a particle, in terms of its mass and momentum, is
#:::<math>v = \frac{pc}{\sqrt{m^2c^2+p^2}}</math>
#:For a particle with mass, this means that momentum of zero gives a speed of zero, and, as the momentum approaches infinity, the speed approaches c.
#:For a massless particle, the speed is always c.
#:Furthermore, this discontinuity in momentum does exist in Newtonian physics with the formula <math>p = mv</math>. If we let v approach c while m approaches 0 we get <math>p=0</math>, while light has a nonzero momentum.
#''observations don't match predictions'' and cosmic causality.
#:The fact that "observations don't match predictions" has shown up many times in the history of science. That is, the accepted wisdom of the day was found to be false, leading to improved theories:
#:*There were once assumed, by Aristotle and many others, to be four elements: earth, air, fire, and water. Subsequent experimental investigation, by numerous people, replaced that theory.
#:*The ancient notion of gravity, that objects fall at a speed proportional to their mass (often ascribed, perhaps imprecisely, to Aristotle), was found to be contrary to experimental evidence, and was replaced by Galilean/Newtonian mechanics.
#:*The geocentrism of Ptolemy lasted a long time until it was found to be contrary to experimental evidence, and was replaced by the Heliocentric theory of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton.
#:*The "phlogiston theory" of combustion was accepted until it proved to be contrary to experimental evidence, and was replaced by the modern oxidation theory by Antoine Lavoisier.
#:*The "caloric theory" supposed that heat was a material substance called "caloric", and that that substance was conserved. It took a long time for Joule and others to develop the modern "kinetic theory" as a replacement.
#:
#:The current "counterexample" is about the "horizon problem", a problem of cosmology which has been known for a few decades. Under the kind of expansion of the universe that non-quantum-mechanics would require, there are places in the universe that are not causally connected and yet have nearly the same temperature. The classical expansion of the universe would have magnified early nonuniformities by about 50 orders of magnitude, an impossible situation. The currently accepted theory dealing with this problem is "inflation". Not all scientists accept this, but most do; other explanations are more exotic than most scientists are willing to accept.
#:
#:An interesting thing about inflation is that it was formulated to solve a different problem—the dominance of matter over antimatter. It was found to address the flatness problem as well. When a theory explains phenomena other than what it was intended for, that of course lends it additional credence.
#:
#:Whether cosmic inflation is implausible is not for us to say. The existence of subatomic particles was once considered implausible.
#:
#:The cited National Geographic article was in fact not about the problem of temperature uniformity, but about various hypotheses, much less widely accepted than inflation, about alternate universes, and whether black hole singularities might connect them. The issue is not about the existence of black holes, but about the connectedness of their singularities. This is really fascinating stuff. The book ''The Hidden Reality'', by Brian Greene, is a fascinating account of these issues. We highly recommend it.
#''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''
#:The simple answer is, unequivocally, that it acts on the 'relativistic' mass. The question seems to relate to a simple misunderstanding of Special Relativity. Einstein's theories lead to the conclusion that observers in different inertial frames of reference (i.e. observers with differing, but constant velocities relative to the thing being observed) will observe different inertial masses in the body being observed. However, there is no variance in the body's mass with regard to the direction of the force. Thus to a given observer, a force in any direction will operate on the same mass. However, to a different observer, this mass may be different, although still the constant with regard to the direction of the force.
#''The observed lack of curvature in overall space.''
#:Spacetime has very definite curvature near any massive object—this is what makes gravity work. The '''global''' curvature of spacetime is an altogether different issue. Whether the average global curvature is zero has consequences for cosmological theories, but it has essentially no effect on the curvature that keeps the Earth in its orbit. If it did have an effect, the issue would have been settled long ago.
#''The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.''
#:We're still working on a quantum theory of gravity; this isn't so much a counter-example as saying that (classical) GR isn't valid in that domain.
#''The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.''
#:Special Relativity only forbids the transmission of matter, energy or information at a speed faster than light. There are plenty of other things that can move faster than light. Consider a laser on Earth which is rotating on a pivot, whose light shines onto the hull of a satellite 200,000Km away (2e8 metres). If the laser rotates at a sedentary one revolution ever four seconds, the speed of the laser beam's tip crossing the satellite's hull is 3.14e8 metres per second - faster than the speed of light. However, this is not a transfer of information. Any information is travelling from Earth to the satellite, obeying the universal speed limit. Similarly, the only information that can be transmitted by the quantum entanglement of two particles is from the originator of the particles to the two observers, not from one observer to another. Faster than light transmission of information using quantum entanglement has never been observed, nor has even conceived how such a mechanism might work.<ref>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612</ref>
#''The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.''
#:As an argument against relativity, there are two reasons that this is invalid (beyond simply questioning the evidential validity of the Bible):
#::a) These passages clearly refer to a [[miracle]]. A miracle, being an act of God, is not subject to the laws of physics.
#::b) It is highly debatable as to whether the verses do describe [[action-at-a-distance]] in the sense of an action whose influence travels instantaneously (and therefore faster than the speed of light). This itself may be argued from two viewpoints:
#:::i) When reading these passages, as with consideration of many apparent relativistic anomalies, the true picture of causality must be considered. In each case there are two apparent events. Event A - Jesus does something (says 'thy son liveth', says 'be it unto thee even as thou wilt', or Christ's spirit leaving His body). Event B - the apparent result (the son lives, her daughter is made whole, or the earth quakes). However, it is not the case in any of these examples that A causes B. Both A and B are caused by a third event. In the first two cases it is Christ's thought that causes the miracle and that causes His lips to announce the miracle. This thought would have occurred fractions of a second before either event, and is the non-instantaneous cause of both. In the last case it is Christ's death that is the precursor and cause of both events.
#:::ii) It must be considered that at the time when the Gospels were written, neither their authors nor their intended readers were aware of any concept of the speed of light and were unable to measure the billionths of a second difference between the events being considered here. Thus just as in modern parlance the phrase 'at the same moment' has a tolerance of milliseconds (unless specifically couched to mean otherwise) so do the various terms used by the Evangelists. They would never have considered it an important issue, and would therefore not have worried about the degree of precision.
#::::Miracles do not violate logic, and the [[Theory of Relativity]] asserts that these [[action-at-a-distance]] miracles described in the [[Gospels]] are impossible. No plausible medium for these miracles, even if they were non-instantaneous action-at-a-distance, has been proposed.
#:::::Scientists' choosing not to try to explain "plausible media" for things described in the Bible is not evidence that Relativity is wrong.
#''The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.''
#:Gravitons are a prediction of [[Quantum mechanics]], not of relativity, although the concept is an extension of the relativistic idea that forces take a finite time to be transmitted over a distance.
#:No one expects to observe gravitons. Calculations show that it is well-nigh impossible with any conceivable detector that we could build. No one is designing, funding, or building any apparatus to search for gravitons.
#:Now it happens that theoretical physicists discuss and speculate on the existence and nature of such things as gravitons as part of their theoretical work. Some of these discussions take place among scientists who receive their salaries from various government agencies that are funded by taxpayers. Whether all of the things that scientists think about, talk about, and write about constitute a good use of money is not for us to say.
#''Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do not experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity''
#:Whilst this observation is unconfirmed, if true it would still not invalidate relativity. Many things may vary with position in space, and relativity does not deny this. There is no suggestion that the fine-structure constant is different at the same point in space for observers in different (inertial or non-inertial) frames, as the 'counterexample' implies.
#''The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a black hole. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."''
#:When physicists encounter something puzzling, their first reaction is usually not to assume that it shows that relativity is wrong. In fact the cited article never mentions relativity at all. It is about "magnetars", a type of neutron star about which very little is known, other than their extremely strong magnetic fields.
#:Many scientific discoveries have arisen from observations that were puzzling at first. Edwin Hubble's observations of galactic redshift led to the realization that the universe is expanding isotropically. The observations by Jocelyn Bell and Antony Hewish, of periodic pulsation in the radio emissions of a star, were so puzzling at first that they seemed to suggest transmissions from intelligent extraterrestrials. They had actually discovered pulsars. When Carl Anderson saw unexplained particle tracks in a cloud chamber, he had discovered antiparticles.
#:None of these people assumed that the explanation for these observations was that relativity was wrong. They were all astrophysicists and were quite familiar with relativity. In fact, Anderson's antiparticles had been predicted by the Dirac equation, a synthesis of special relativity and the Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics, from a few years earlier.
#''The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.''
#:It is utterly baffling how anyone could make such an assertion. The insights from relativity are multitudinous. Relativity forms the basis for astronomy, cosmology, electrodynamics, and many other fields. The interconnection between the electric and magnetic forces is now seen to be a straightforward consequence of relativity. Relativity combined with quantum mechanics are the basis of all of contemporary physics.
#:The Dirac equation, which gives rise to antiparticles and the theory of spinors, was an early example of introducing relativity into the Schrödinger equation.
#:More generally, special relativity was combined with quantum theory to produce [[quantum field theory]] (QFT). An example of a QFT is [[quantum electrodynamics]], the most precise theory in physics. Furthermore, string theory is Lorentz invariant and produces general relativity in the low energy limit.
#''The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.''
#:We are baffled that anyone would connect this problem with relativity. The non-relativity principle of conservation of mass has been known, in general, for hundreds of years, going back to the time of the alchemists, and has been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. The principle of conservation of energy has also been a fundamental and accurate principle since the 19th century. Relativity simply generalizes this to a principle of both together, with even greater precision. So, in principle, it is recognized that the mass of the standard kilogram could change if an energy transfer took place. But no combustion, corrosion, or nuclear decay is suspected of having taken place. In any case, the amount of energy that would have to have been released is 1.25 megawatt-hours, which would certainly have been noticed.
#:Relativity does not promise uniformity of the universe any more strongly than classical physics did. The apparent change in mass of the standard kilogram is simply a mystery.
#''The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 23, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about speculation that the constant "alpha" (see item 17 above) may not be constant. It might have decreased, by 45 parts per billion, as recently (in cosmic time) as two billion years ago, based on data from the Oklo "natural fission reactor". Other measurements have been made of alpha at earlier times, such as measurement of light from distant quasars. These measurements suggest that alpha has increased by a few parts per 105 in 12 billion years.
#:There is plenty of literature on theories about change in alpha, and some of it indicates that this may be due to change in the speed of light. Specifically, the Oklo data may suggest that the speed of light may have been increasing slightly. (This is the opposite of the direction of change claimed by fundamentalists, but is much smaller in any case.)
#:Speculation on a different speed of light in the past may relate to theories of "cosmic inflation", which touches on the question of why the Cosmic Background Radiation is so nearly isotropic, which indicates a near-uniformity of temperature, which requires inflation or some equivalent mechanism.
#:None of the scientists working in this area seem to doubt the fundamental correctness of relativity.
#''"According to Einstein's view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.''
#:The cited article is fascinating, and is about a fascinating aspect of contemporary physics. Like item 23, it would have been useful to say what the article is about.
#:The cited article is about a very recent and exciting development in fundamental theoretical physics, generally called the "holographic principle". This proposes that our perceived 3-dimensional space actually arises from a "hologram" on a 2-dimensional space. Much has been written about this recently, including the best-selling book ''The Hidden Reality'' by Brian Greene. This hologram manifests itself in the "foamlike" ripples of spacetime, at the scale of the Planck length, which is so small that there seemed to be no way to detect it directly.
#:But it seems that some "inexplicable static" in the results of another unrelated experiment, searching for gravitational waves, may be the first hints of the holographic nature of space. If so, this is a lucky and serendipitous result.
#:Serendipitous scientific discoveries have been made many times, as when Henri Becquerel put a photographic plate in a dark drawer because the weather was cloudy, and thereby discovered radioactivity.
#:That the "foamlike" nature of space at short distances is contrary to the continuous nature presumed by classical mechanics and relativity has been known for some time. This is the problem that quantum gravity seeks to solve.
#''"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don't gel."''
#:Quoting things without explaining the context is often a bad idea, and the indicated item is a good example of this. It gives no hint of what the article from which the quote was taken is about. The article is about one scientist's contribution to the problem of unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. The scientist, Petr HoYava of Berkeley, has come up with an approach that he says eliminates the infinities that have plagued other unification attempts.
#:The two quoted sentences are HoYava's ''statement of the problem''. So it comes as no surprise that he says that there is a conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics. The very next paragraph begins:
#::The solution, HoYava says, is to snip threads that bind time to space at very high energies .... At low energies, general relativity emerges from this underlying framework ..."
#:It is well known that, just as classical mechanics emerges from quantum mechanics at non-microscopic scales, and classical mechanics emerges from relativity at low speeds, both relativity and quantum mechanics should emerge from the Grand Unified Theory (whatever that turns out to be) at the appropriate scales.
#''The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.''
#:The topology of wormholes is an interesting topic, widely discussed among theoretical physicists and mathematicians. There is much speculation about what they would be like (if they could exist at all under quantum gravity), and what kind of "cosmic censorship" or "chronology protection" theorems might make practical time travel impossible. The nature of these theorems seems to be intertwined with theories of quantum gravity and "grand unification", so the exact form of the "cosmic censorship", if it exists, can't be known until quantum mechanics and relativistic geometry are unified. It is an exciting field of research. No one believes that the "cosmic censorship" will take the form of relativity not being a true non-quantum approximation to reality.
#''The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.''
#:Since the 70's much work has been done on the subject of black hole thermodynamics,<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973CMaPh..31..161B</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9307035v1.pdf</ref> most notably by the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge [[Stephen Hawking]]. When quantum field theory is added to the analysis of black holes it is found that they do not possess "low entropy" (quite the opposite, in fact) and are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...7.2333B</ref> The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article has labelled this work in a footnote as "[c]ontrived explanations", with no explanation for this characterization given.
#''Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.''
#:Please read the cited paper carefully. It is a survey of their observations over a 30 year period. They point out that their data matches general relativity to within 0.2 percent, and is now down in the "noise" of other effects, such as lack of accurate knowledge of just how far away the pulsars are, and lack of accurate knowledge of galactic constants. As they say in the abstract, "tighter bounds will be difficult to obtain." The paper, written in 2004, also notes that, because the pulsar beams are slowly tilting out of the line of sight to Earth, "A core component [of the emission] is quite prominent in the data taken in 1980-81, but it faded very significantly between 1980 and 1998 and was nearly gone by 2003."
#:That is why they are not releasing further data. 30 years is a fairly long time to watch a pair of pulsars. They're not doing the experiment any more—it did its job, and it's finished. No one drops cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa any more either.
#:The data are not diverging from the predictions.
#''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.''
#:The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses general relativity to achieve greater accuracy.<ref>http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html</ref>
#:In fact, relativity is what makes the magnetic force necessary. The magnetic force is used in, among other things, electric motors and generators.
#:Even if it were the case that no practical applications have come from relativity, that is irrelevant. The validity of a theory is not based on the creation of useful devices. It is based on its ability to accurately predict the results of an experiment. Relativity "has held up under extensive experimental scrutiny".<ref>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/</ref>
#:If scientific theories were judged by their application in useful devices, the following Nobel-worthy theories would be rejected:
#::cosmic inflation
#::parity violation in the weak force
#::the "standard model", with strange/charm/top/bottom/mu/tau
#::the Chandrasekhar limit for white dwarf stars
#''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.''
#:The rules for calculating inertia and other questions of mechanics are well known. The inertia, that is, the way that a force affects an object's momentum, is well known. Hundreds of physics textbooks discuss this in great detail, in terms of the Lorentz transform and the concepts of the force and momentum 4-vectors. The "inertia" comes from what is now called the mass, which used to be called the "rest mass". Archaic treatments formulated this in terms of the "relativistic mass", which was different. The mass is a scalar, and has no direction. The formulas for calculating the motion in terms of forces, in the direction of motion or transverse to it, are well known.
#''Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.''
#:This seems to be another basic misunderstanding of relativity, from someone who gave up halfway through the textbook. Newtonian momentum (p = mv) does certainly indicate that a body with zero mass (''m'') must have zero momentum whatever its velocity (''v''). However, the relativistic equation for momentum is:
#::<math> p = \gamma m_0v\,</math>
#:where ''m''0 is the [[invariant mass|rest mass]] of the object and ''?'' is the Lorentz factor, given by
#::<math>\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2}}\,,</math>
#:where ''c'' is the [[speed of light]].
#:For the case of a photon, where rest mass is zero and ''v'' is equal to ''c'', this gives ''p'' as zero divided by zero - an undetermined value.
#:However, with the substitution of the famous E=mc2, where E is the energy of the body, the momentum equation can be rearranged to:
#::<math>pc = \sqrt{E^2 - m_0^2c^4}</math>
#:With a photon of zero rest mass, this gives:
#::<math>p = E/c\,</math>
#:Finally, substituting Planck's Equation for the energy of a photon <math>E = hf\,</math> where ''h'' is [[Planck's Constant]] and ''f'' is the frequency of the photon, we get the familiar (and experimentally demonstrated) value for a photon's momentum of:
#::<math>p = hf/c = h/\lambda\,</math>
#:where <math>\lambda</math> is the photon's wavelength.<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html</ref>
#''Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.''
#:There are no "conditions of a conservative field". A conservative field is one that has a curl of zero. Perhaps what was meant was that the gravitational field around the Sun, under Newtonian mechanics, is conservative. This is true because it is the gradient of an inverse-square scalar field, and all gradients have a curl of zero. Under relativity, the curl is also zero, due to the Bianchi identity and the symmetries of Riemann's tensor. See the extensive discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ACounterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=801452&oldid=799266 here].
#:The reference to the twin paradox suggests that the author thought that the passage of time is some kind of scalar field that should be obtainable as the path integral of a conservative vector field. It is not. Passage of time is a property of one's path through spacetime, and is similar to path length. (In fact, under the Lorentz/Minkowski metric, it is exactly path length.) Just as two paths from point A to point B on a sheet of paper can have different lengths, the paths of the twins can have different lengths, and hence different elapsed local times.
#''The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?''
#:The "Ehrenfest paradox" is not an actual paradox. Non-inertial relativistic motion of solid bodies is quite complicated, involving such concepts as "Born rigidity", "Langevin observers", the "Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric", and "quotient manifolds". In general, the subject is complicated, and has provided physicists with much food for thought. But it does not disprove relativity.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.''
#:The claims of that item are preposterous. Read the cited paper (or its abstract) carefully. Einstein's statement that clocks would run slower at the equator, due to time dilation, was correct according to special relativity alone. What Einstein didn't realize, because he wouldn't discover general relativity for another 10 years, was that the gravitational time shift would offset that.
#:A "geoid" (the shape dicussed in the paper) is a theoretical shape used in mathematical physics, that is in equilibrium between the effects of centrifugal force (from rotation) and gravity. It is essentially an oblate spheroid. It can be thought of as the shape a rotating planet would take if it were completely fluid. Or it could be thought of as the shape of "global sea level". Jupiter, because of its rapid rotation, has a very pronounced flattening at the poles. Since Jupiter is not solid, its shape is a geoid. The Earth is ''very nearly'' a geoid, of course. But not exactly, because of gravitational nonuniformities, and things like mountains, that can exist because of the Earth's rigidity. No one "made new assumptions about the Earth's shape" to justify anything. The assumption that the Earth's shape is a geoid is a theoretical assumption due to the ''approximately'' fluid nature of the Earth. But no one claims that the Earth's shape is anything other than what it is observed and measured to be.
#:What the paper is about is the fact that the effects of rotational speed and gravitational time dilation happen to cancel each other on an ideal geoid. So all clocks at "sea level" on an ideal geoid-shaped planet run at the same speed. Whether this result is implausible is not for us to say.
#:The cited paper does not refute relativity.
#''The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.''
#:The physics and mathematics underlying the "twin paradox" are well known. That one of the twins will have had to undergo different accelerations from the other before returning to the same point is what enables them to perceive different passage of time. This does not contradict relativity, and Einstein never said that it does. His explanation in terms of different acceleration is correct.
#:The comment about extending the length of the trip so that the acceleration would be ''de minimis'' is wrong. It seems to suggest that the acceleration could be reduced until it is negligible. It can be reduced by lengthening the trip, but it is not negligible. The Lorentz transform, and the equations of motion, are mathematically exact. The integral of a very small function over a long period is still significant. If the twins followed different paths in spacetime, which they must in order to measure different elapsed proper time, they must have undergone different accelerations, however small those differences may have been.
#:Of course, if they never come back to the same point, they could both undergo zero acceleration.
#''Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.''
#:Quantum field theory abounds with fields. The Higgs particle has a Higgs field. It has nothing to do with the "luminiferous aether".
#''Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.''
#:Time isn't a vector. It is a component of the vector space known as "spacetime". Vectors have negatives; the word "inverse" is not typically used here. While there are thermodynamic and other reasons for not allowing time to go backwards in the real world, the mathematics of spacetime allow vectors with any components, even negative ones. Mathematicians define a 4-dimensional vector space as having two operators: addition and scalar multiplication. There is also the identity vector (0,0,0,0). So, to the extent that one asks what vector can be added to (0,0,0,t) to produce (0,0,0,0), the answer is (0,0,0,-t), but that has nothing to do with relativity.
#''In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.''
#:That a Bible verse "likely" refers to a scientific phenomenon does not make good science. The objection appears to be claiming that the Bible contradicts the Michelson-Morley experiment, so the latter must be wrong. The Michelson-Morley experiment is very well known, has been repeated countless times, and is incontrovertible. To suggest that the Bible verse in Genesis contradicts such an incontrovertible phenomenon does a disservice to both the Bible and to science.
#''It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].''
#:Modern formulations of the Lorentz aether theory may very well make it completely equivalent to relativity, both special and general. But that doesn't make relativity wrong; it just means that another theory is just as correct. The universal preference of the scientific community for relativity over the Lorentz theory is probably not based on religious faith, but on simplicity, as expressed in [[Occam's razor]]. The Lorentz theory postulates an aether that no experiment can possibly determine the properties of, while relativity postulates no aether.
#''Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."''
#:They are not "beyond understanding". They are simply beyond closed-form solution. Cosmologists work with approximate solutions, calculated by extensive computer calculations, all the time. A well-known example of this is the simulation of galaxy dynamics. Particle physicists do this also, in, for example, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) calculations. It is fortunate that the equations of Keplerian/Newtonian planetary motion were solvable by the mathematical methods of the 17th century—a closed-form solution to a second-order differential equation. Modern physics problems are much harder. But, with modern computers, we can solve the equations of gravity to enormous precision.
#''Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein's Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."''
#:The first cited reference, from which the quote was taken, is a totally crackpot web page, from a web site that seems to specialize in hosting crackpot papers. The writing is utterly illiterate and incoherent, as in this sentence: "According to Faraday's Law it can be explained as that, duo to the magnetic flux in conductor line changing, firstly induced electromotive force dU coming from the line-winded conductor to bring out voltage, then based on differential form <math>I = \frac{-\sigma s dU}{dl}</math> of Ohm's Law, the physical natural would be regarded as 'voltage before electric current' "
#''Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.''
#:The equations of electrodynamics (Maxwell's equations), and their connection with relativity, are well known. Hundreds of electrodynamics textbooks cover this subject. The equations are correct at all realizable speeds, even relativistic (''near'' the speed of light) speeds. (Maxwell's equations are said to be the only equations from classical physics that did not need to be modified for relativity.) The equations correctly describe the behavior of magnets (this is presumably what was meant by "solenoids"), charges, and electric and magnetic fields, even at speeds near the speed of light. Of course the equations don't work ''at'' the speed of light. The cited article never discussed speeds ''near'' the speed of light, only ''at'' the speed of light. The questioner was rightly taken to task for his physically unrealizable assumption.
#''The Pauli Exclusion Principle states that no two electrons...''
#:This is wrong on many levels. If there were exactly as many quantum-mechanical states (eigenfunctions) as there are particles, then, indeed, a fermion particle could only go to another state if the particle already in that state moved. But there are many more available states than there are particles.
#:
#:The cited article was a lecture by Brian Cox, a "popularizer" of physics, and the comments on the web page take him to task over a great many points, including a confusion between "quantum states" and "energy states", and what quantum-mechanical interconnectedness really means. People would be well advised to read those comments, as well as the analysis by Sean Carroll [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/02/23/everything-is-connected/#.UdzP9KwWSSo here], which points out the many flaws in Brian Cox's reasoning.
#:
#:In any case, this is about quantum mechanics, not relativity.
#''The recent findings of gravitational waves are actually just dust.''
#:This is about the observations by the "BICEP2" telescope early in 2014. The claim was that analysis of the polarization of the [[Cosmic microwave background]] (CMB) would show that the CMB had been influenced by gravitational waves in the first fraction of a second after the big bang. That is, if noise from interstellar dust grains didn't confound the measurements. It is now believed that the dust grain noise is too high to make this a reliable measurement.
#:Please read the cited article. It indicates that, based on observations by the Planck satellite, it should be possible to make a cleaner observation. The balloon-borne "Spider" telescope is slated to be launched later this year, and it might be successful.
#:Taking the failure of the BICEP2 observations as a counterexample to relativity is like saying "I thought of a new and clever proof of the existence of God last week, but unfortunately there was a flaw in my logic, so therefore God doesn't exist."
#:In any case, another indirect observation of gravitational waves has already been made, in the Hulse-Taylor observations of binary pulsar [[PSR B1913 16]] in the 1990's.

Unless someone can come up with a sensible example, we will not be posting further rebuttals. The recent ones have been hideously pointless, and not worth replying to. Many of them have cited articles that have ''nothing to do with relativity''. Tides do not disprove relativity. It's possible that, because of the rather famous nature of the "counterexamples" page (it is cited around the world, and has nearly 2 million web views), people are simply putting in parody, or trolling, or humor, or whatever, in an attempt to see their work on a world-famous page.

== See also ==
*[[Theory of relativity]]
*[[General Theory of Relativity]]
*[[Special Theory of Relativity]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[E=mc²]]
*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Relativity]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-01-08T12:44:09Z

NgSmith:

The [[theory of relativity]] is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.<ref>See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by [[Barack Obama]]. Virtually no one who is taught and believes relativity continues to read the Bible, a book that outsells New York Times bestsellers by a hundred-fold.</ref> Here is a list of counterexamples, and if only one of these is true, then the theory fails:

#The [[Pioneer anomaly]].
#Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23410705/</ref>
#Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, which show a shift outside the margin of error predicted by relativity.<ref>See, e.g., the discussion at [[Talk:Essay:Quantifying_Order]].</ref>
#The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light. Note that this "discontinuity" exists for both the momentum formula in relativity and the momentum formula in classical physics.
#The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?
#The observed lack of curvature in overall space.
#The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominate
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] of [[quantum entanglement]]<ref>Quantum entanglement has not yet communicated information faster than the speed of light, but has already exhibited action faster than the speed of light.</ref>
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] by Jesus, described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]]
#The failure to discover [[gravitons]], despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
#The inability of the theory to produce anything of value, contrary to every other theory of physics.
#The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.
#The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html ("A varying speed of light contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity, and would undermine much of traditional physics. But some physicists believe it would elegantly explain puzzling cosmological phenomena such as the nearly uniform temperature of the universe.")</ref>
#"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel."<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space</ref>
#The theory predicts [[wormholes]] just as it predicts [[black holes]], but wormholes violated causality and permit absurd time travel.<ref>http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/i13/p1446_1 . The popular science press promotes black holes to a far greater extent than wormholes.</ref>
#The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in [[entropy]] required by the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]].<ref>Contrived explanations have been suggested for this dilemma, such as Stephen Hawking proposing that the entropy of matter in a black hole is somehow stored in the surface area of its event horizon to be released back into its surroundings as the black hole decays by ... "Hawking radiation."</ref>
#Data from the [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] increasingly diverge from predictions of the [[General Theory of Relativity]] such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.
#The lack of a single useful device developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.

(add to list)

{{Relativity}}

== See also ==
* [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:physics]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-01-07T21:55:05Z

NgSmith: /* Counterexample 9 (Jesus action-at-a-distance) */

Andy, can you clarify #4 for me? I'm not sure I understand it. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:50, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:Sure, I welcome discussion of these important points. As I've said, I have an open mind about this and if something is true, then I accept it. But if something is false, I'll criticize it.

:The theory of relativity has taught for decades that as the velocity of a mass increases, then its (scalar) relativistic mass increases per the Lorentzian transformation. Now apply a force ORTHOGONAL to the velocity. Does that force encounter the increased mass, as relativity says, or encounter the rest mass, as logic would dictate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Ah, I see what you mean. May I suggest a re-wording? "The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass." I think that might be a little clearer than it is currently stated. Your thoughts? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:06, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::Please do. Your edits are always welcome, and you've suggested an improvement here. Thank you for making this change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:20, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Why would logic dictate that? Mass is a scalar, and a force from any direction should encounter the same increased mass, not different masses from different directions.

::I suppose that under Newtonian mechanics, a moving object has a velocity of 0 within the plane perpendicular to its line of motion, and any forces operating in that plane will act on the object as if it is at rest. But that's not what ''logic'' dictates, that's what the ''previous theory'' dictates.

::Essentially your counterexample to relativity is that it makes a prediction that contradicts Newton's laws. This is neithe r a contradiction nor a logical problem, and it is should be edited out.[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::No, it's a logical problem. If you're suggesting that one force can affect the inertial in an entirely independent, orthogonal direction, that's illogical. One thing cannot affect something else that is entirely independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:40, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::: Why is that illogical? What logical principle does it violate?

:::: See, in relativity, orthogonal doesn't ''mean'' independent. In relativity, velocity vectors ''do not add.'' In relativity, the effect of a new force is not independent of the object's existing momentum. And there is nothing illogical about that; it's just a new theory that contradicts the intuition from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

::::: Ng, something cannot be independent (orthogonal) and yet dependent at the same time. Unfortunately, you're arguing with your own theory at this point. Even most relativity promoters have abandoned the position you take here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:37, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::It seems that his point is that something can be orthogonal and dependent. I agree: The cross-product of two vectors is orthogonal to both and yet obviously dependent on both. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 21:41, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: OK, good point, an orthogonal vector can be a function of other orthogonal vectors. But that's a bit different from what we're discussing. Here it's an orthogonal force that is not dependent on anything else, and yet Ng says it encounters relativistic mass due to a different orthogonal force.

::::::: I think relativists have abandoned Ng's position, so he's really arguing with his own side at this point. As a result, I urge him to reconsider his views with an open mind once he confirms that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: First of all, relativity has not "abandoned" the prediction we're talking about. The velocity addition formulas for both parallel and perpendicular velocities have not changed, and they still predict that an orthogonal force will have a harder time accelerating a fast-moving object. Physicists may have changed their informal interpretation of this formula, but not the formula itself, nor its predictions.

:::::: Note also that relativity's prediction can't be all that illogical, because this is what we ''actually observe happening to particles at high speeds.'' If you think that fast-moving particles commit some terrible offense against basic logic, take it up with God.

:::::: There is a very simple way to settle this matter: write an encyclopedia article where the material is properly sourced. If this is indeed some counterexample or logical flaw in relativity, then one can easily find a book or paper exposing that flaw, and cite it.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 17:55:04 EST 2009

:::::OK, I think I see part of the problem you people are having. The word "independent" has two different meanings. Being ''linearly'' independent is a concept from pure mathematics. Being ''causally'' independent is an unrelated metaphysical concept. Whether a force pushing on something causes it to move, and by how much, is completely, umm, independent of whether the vectors involved are linearly independent (orthogonal). Please try to be very careful about the meanings of the terms. [[User:SaraT|SaraT]] 17:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don't think that's the source of our confusion. I think the main problem is that, according to Newtonian mechanics and thus according to our mechanical intuition, orthogonal things tend to operate independently. Not only that, but a force exerted on an object is usually independent of the object's momentum.

:::::: In relativity, none of these things are true, due to the fact that velocities no longer add like vectors (and thus acceleration no longer incurs a cumulative change in velocity in the usual way.) This is seen as some sort of logical flaw or paradox simply because it contradicts the deeply ingrained intuition that came from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 18:10:46 EST 2009

== Counterexample 4 (limiting behavior) ==

For the fourth "counterexample," the author points out that the momentum <math>p=mv\gamma</math> does not approach the momentum of light as <math>m\rightarrow 0</math> and <math>v\rightarrow c</math>

Aside from the mathematical sloppiness of taking two independent variables to a limit at the same time, at unspecified rates, these sorts of "discontinuities" can be found in just about any scientific theory. In Newtonian mechanics, for example, take the orbit of a planet as the planet's mass goes to 0. For any nonzero mass the orbit is an ellipse; at m=0 it is suddenly a straight line. Is this a "counterexample" to Newton's laws?

Or in electronics, I=V/R. The limiting case is no voltage, no resistance, no current; but if someone foolishly took V/R as both V and R go to zero, he would get a nonsensical answer. Let them both go at the same rate and you get I=1. Is this a "counterexample" to basic electronics?

Or more to the point, momentum in Newtonian mechanics is <math>p=mv</math>, and this also fails to give the momentum of a photon at m=0, v=c. Again, is that a "counterexample" to <math>p=mv</math>? Will we see this entry in a corresponding page of "Counterexamples to Newton's laws?"

But none of these are counterexamples or "discontinuities": they are just a misinterpretation of the formulas. You don't get the momentum of a photon by taking the momentum formula for a mass and setting m=0 and v=c. That's just not what the formula means, or what they are for. This item should also be removed.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Tue Dec 15 10:16:21 EST 2009

== Counterexample 9 (Jesus action-at-a-distance) ==

The quoted verse doesn't strongly suggest "action-at-a-distance" in the relativistic sense. Light could travel the distances mentioned in the passage in a fraction of a second, which is well within the precision given in the verse (an hour). The verse and relativity are not in contradiction here. This should be removed.

:I have an open mind about it. In the the healing of the centurion's servant, if the Greek is translated as same "moment" then relativity is impossible, but if translated as the same "hour" then there is no conflict with relativity.

:But the healing of the centurion's servant is probably not the only place where there is [[action at a distance]] in the [[Bible]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Any distance on the earth is less than 20,000km. A force acting with the speed of light takes less than 1/15,000 ≈ 0.0000667 seconds for this distance.

::I don't think how eyewitnesses could spot such a short time...

::So, there may probably be no other places where [[action at a distance]] is described in the [[Bible]].

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:17, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::You make an interesting point, Frank. But according to this site, it takes 1/7.4 seconds for light to circle the globe, which is much longer than your figure.[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_times_does_light_go_around_the_Earth_in_one_second] More generally and more importantly, there is the issue of how this action in the Bible ''isn't'' light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::Indeed, an error in my calculation: 20,000,000m / 300,000,000 m/sec = 1/15 seconds.
::::Fast enough, still.
::::Whether the action in the Bible ''isn't'' light doesn't matter: it is indistinguishable from an action happening at the speed of light for the witnesses of the time, so it doesn't say anything about the validity of the theory of relativity...
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 19:46, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank you make an interesting point, and I have an open mind about it. But I'm not entirely convinced. When the woman cured herself of bleeding and Jesus felt power leaving him, that sounds more like heat than light. And for heat to travel virtually instantaneously (or at the speed of light) WOULD violate the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Yes, it would. And it would also violate classical physics, the laws of thermodynamics etc.

::::::But of course a miracle is going to violate the laws of physics. I don't see how this can be cited to discredit one physical theory over another.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that point, Andy - I'm not sure this action could comment on relativity any more than the sun stopping for Joshua could comment on the Copernican model of the solar system. If God wanted heat/light to travel at some finite speed except in certain instances, how is that different from the sun and moon moving in the sky, except in certain instances? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:32, 5 January 2010 (EST)

: I have an open mind about this. You make good points, Jacob. But your analogy is not perfect because:

*the Joshua account might be understood as the ''perception'' of the army that they sun did not set until they completed their job, but the healing in the [[New Testament]] cannot be explained as mere perception
*if the Joshua account is taken absolutely literally, Newtonian mechanics does not say it is impossible, while relativity does say [[action-at-a-distance]] is impossible

I look forward to our translation work on the Joshua passage (and New Testament passages) to see if that brings forth insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)
:Your second point is a good one, and I suppose my example wasn't very good. But on a different note, what makes you say that the Joshua account might be understood as only a perception of the army? I think I'm going to go translate that chapeter, I'll be interested to see what Hebrew words are used for that bit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:49, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Shall we look at it next? Joshua 10:11-14, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:18, 5 January 2010 (EST)

IMO, the discussion is a little bit bizarre: Following [[David Hume]]'s definition of a [[miracle]] as a "a violation of the laws of nature", for evaluating the ''laws of natures'', miracles can't be taken into account.

As I said earlier: we shouldn't try to restrict God with the laws of our logic - or even physics.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, perhaps what you mean is that you don't want the logic of the Bible to be used to evaluate claims by scientists. If so, I completely disagree. And so would [[Isaac Newton]] and most great scientists.

:As our [[Conservative Bible Translation]] project is revealing, Jesus said his works were not miracles, but signs. So any definition of miracle by Hume (who, by the way, leaned toward atheistic rather than Christianity) is not terribly helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::So, what's the definition of a ''sign'', then? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:06, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::The same as its name suggests: a disclosure of reality, rather than a violation of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*I took Hume's definition as I found it on conservapedia's page on [[miracle]]s.
::::*The page on [[sign]]s doesn't describe Jesu works - perhaps you can fix this
::::*If you don't like Hume, what's about [[Thomas Aquinas]]:

:::::''Now, there are various degrees and orders of these miracles. Indeed, the highest rank among miracles is held by those events in which something is done by God which nature never could do. For example, that two bodies should be coincident; that the sun reverse its course, or stand still; that the sea open up and offer a way through which people may pass. And even among these an order may be observed. For the greater the things that God does are, and the more they are removed from the capacity of nature, the greater the miracle is. Thus, it is more miraculous for the sun to reverse its course than for the sea to be divided.

:::::''Then, the second degree among miracles is held by those events in which God does something which nature can do, but not in this order. It is a work of nature for an animal to live, to see, and to walk; but for it to live after death, to see after becoming blind, to walk after paralysis of the limbs, this nature cannot do—but God at times does such works miraculously. Even among this degree of miracles a gradation is evident, according as what is done is more removed from the capacity of nature.

:::::''Now, the third degree of miracles occurs when God does what is usually done by the working of nature, but without the operation of the principles of nature. For example, a person may be cured by divine power from a fever which could be cured naturally, and it may rain independently of the working of the principles of nature.

::::*Acts 2:43 ''Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles'' (KJB) So, we have ''miraculous signs'' and ''wonders''

::::*John 2:11 ''This was the first of the miracles Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and by doing showed his glory, and so his disciples believed in him. '' (CBP) ''Changing water into wine'' is something nature never could do: it's an outright miracle, miraculous sign, whatever...

::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::That's great recitation, Frank, but how about simply applying logic yourself? You're a bright guy, why simply hunt and repeat quotes from others? On this site we encourage ''thinking'' in a logical way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:21, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I'm trying to use the fact that I'm standing on the shoulder of giants... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:23, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::How about using "the fact" of simple logic and the power of your ''own'' mind?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::To make it as clear as possible in my own words:
::::::::*I won't restrict God by laws which men made or observed. Can I understand God's ways? Can I expect God to act the way I think to be logical? That would be [[hubris]].
::::::::*Testing scientific hypotheses using God's miracles or signs seems to be odd!
::::::::But which part of Thomas Aquinas's definition of miraculous events didn't you like? Granted, he had a slightly other view of the ''capacity of nature'' than we have today, but his line of reasoning was as valid in the 15th century as it is today! I hoped that his definition would be more ''helpful'' than that of David Hume.

::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:41, 6 January 2010 (EST)

== lack of a single useful device ==

At conservapedia's article on the [[Global Positioning System]], one can read:

''These receivers rely on precisely timing signals sent from GPS satellites, with corrections for atmospheric attenuation and relativistic effects.''

GPS seems to be a useful device!

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Great catch of a misleading statement, Frank! I've corrected it.

:Our [[theory of relativity]] entry explains how it did not aid the development of [[GPS]]. The repeated attempt by relativists to falsely claim credit for [[GPS]] ''reinforces'' the lack of any legitimate contributions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::Well, you are consistent! Just another question: What's about [[particle accelerator]]s? Generally, the theory of relativity is used to explain why it takes more energy to accelerate an electron from 200,000,000 m/sec to 200,002,000 m/sec than from 2,000 m/sec to 4,000 m/sec.

::Have you thought about an explanation for this phenomenon?

::Accelerators have applications beyond basic research!

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:02, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::Frank, I have an open mind about this, but I'm not aware of a single benefit from what you describe, nor do you identify one. Do you have an open mind about this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*Synchrotron radiation is [http://www.physik.uni-kiel.de/kfs/Anwendung/medicine.php used in medicine]
::::*So, may I ask again: what your explanation for the phenomenon? I suppose you are aware of the phenomenon I described above?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:47, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank, inventors and doctors and engineers don't typically even bother learning relativity. Should I repeat that? Complain to engineering departments and medical schools if you think that should change. Nothing useful has even been designed or built using relativity. If you want to look and look and look for a counterexample then you'll be wasting your time. I'm not going to waste mine. This is my final reply on this topic for now. Do something logical, such as editing the Bible, and after benefiting from that experience we can revisit this issue in a month or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Why does it matter whether the users of the invention learn relativity? Most users of microwaves never learn Maxwell's equations either. That doesn't mean that the laws are irrelevant to the gadget's operation.

::::::Likewise, the engineers who correct the clocks of GPS satellites may not know or care that relativistic effects are behind the clock skew. But that dodges the point that relativistic effects are real, observable, and must be corrected for in several useful inventions.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

== GPS revisited ==

The same Tom von Flandern who is quoted in the article on the [[theory of relativity]] saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein", wrote in an article in 1998:

''So we can state that the clock rate effect predicted by GR is confirmed to within no worse than ±200 / 45,900 or about 0.7%, and that predicted by SR is confirmed to within ±200 / 7,200 or about 3%. This is a very conservative estimate. In an actual study, most of that maximum 200 ns/day variance would almost certainly be accounted for by differences between planned and achieved orbits, and the predictions of relativity would be confirmed with much better precision.''

As for how the satellites take into account the relativistic effects, here is his explanation of the so-called ''factory offset'' of the atomic clocks for the satellites:

''GPS atomic clocks in orbit would run at rates quite different from ground clocks if allowed to do so, and this would complicate usage of the system. So the counter of hyperfine cesium transitions (or the corresponding phenomenon in the case of rubidium atomic clocks) is reset on the ground before launch so that, once in orbit, the clocks will tick off whole seconds at the same average rate as ground clocks. GPS clocks are therefore seen to run slow compared to ground clocks before launch, but run at the same rate as ground clocks after launch when at the correct orbital altitude.''

Seems to me that relativistic effects have to be taken into account.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:13, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, your intuition ("seems to me") is wrong here, and the entry explains it clearly. GPS is a work of engineering and any timing discrepancies between the satellite and ground are obviously better handled directly by synchronization rather than asking a physicist what he thinks of relativity. Engineers don't even bother taking general relativity courses, let alone try to build a satellite system using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2010-01-07T21:51:20Z

NgSmith: /* lack of a single useful device */

Andy, can you clarify #4 for me? I'm not sure I understand it. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:50, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:Sure, I welcome discussion of these important points. As I've said, I have an open mind about this and if something is true, then I accept it. But if something is false, I'll criticize it.

:The theory of relativity has taught for decades that as the velocity of a mass increases, then its (scalar) relativistic mass increases per the Lorentzian transformation. Now apply a force ORTHOGONAL to the velocity. Does that force encounter the increased mass, as relativity says, or encounter the rest mass, as logic would dictate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Ah, I see what you mean. May I suggest a re-wording? "The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass." I think that might be a little clearer than it is currently stated. Your thoughts? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:06, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::Please do. Your edits are always welcome, and you've suggested an improvement here. Thank you for making this change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:20, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Why would logic dictate that? Mass is a scalar, and a force from any direction should encounter the same increased mass, not different masses from different directions.

::I suppose that under Newtonian mechanics, a moving object has a velocity of 0 within the plane perpendicular to its line of motion, and any forces operating in that plane will act on the object as if it is at rest. But that's not what ''logic'' dictates, that's what the ''previous theory'' dictates.

::Essentially your counterexample to relativity is that it makes a prediction that contradicts Newton's laws. This is neithe r a contradiction nor a logical problem, and it is should be edited out.[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::No, it's a logical problem. If you're suggesting that one force can affect the inertial in an entirely independent, orthogonal direction, that's illogical. One thing cannot affect something else that is entirely independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:40, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::: Why is that illogical? What logical principle does it violate?

:::: See, in relativity, orthogonal doesn't ''mean'' independent. In relativity, velocity vectors ''do not add.'' In relativity, the effect of a new force is not independent of the object's existing momentum. And there is nothing illogical about that; it's just a new theory that contradicts the intuition from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

::::: Ng, something cannot be independent (orthogonal) and yet dependent at the same time. Unfortunately, you're arguing with your own theory at this point. Even most relativity promoters have abandoned the position you take here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:37, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::It seems that his point is that something can be orthogonal and dependent. I agree: The cross-product of two vectors is orthogonal to both and yet obviously dependent on both. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 21:41, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: OK, good point, an orthogonal vector can be a function of other orthogonal vectors. But that's a bit different from what we're discussing. Here it's an orthogonal force that is not dependent on anything else, and yet Ng says it encounters relativistic mass due to a different orthogonal force.

::::::: I think relativists have abandoned Ng's position, so he's really arguing with his own side at this point. As a result, I urge him to reconsider his views with an open mind once he confirms that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: First of all, relativity has not "abandoned" the prediction we're talking about. The velocity addition formulas for both parallel and perpendicular velocities have not changed, and they still predict that an orthogonal force will have a harder time accelerating a fast-moving object. Physicists may have changed their informal interpretation of this formula, but not the formula itself, nor its predictions.

:::::: Note also that relativity's prediction can't be all that illogical, because this is what we ''actually observe happening to particles at high speeds.'' If you think that fast-moving particles commit some terrible offense against basic logic, take it up with God.

:::::: There is a very simple way to settle this matter: write an encyclopedia article where the material is properly sourced. If this is indeed some counterexample or logical flaw in relativity, then one can easily find a book or paper exposing that flaw, and cite it.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 17:55:04 EST 2009

:::::OK, I think I see part of the problem you people are having. The word "independent" has two different meanings. Being ''linearly'' independent is a concept from pure mathematics. Being ''causally'' independent is an unrelated metaphysical concept. Whether a force pushing on something causes it to move, and by how much, is completely, umm, independent of whether the vectors involved are linearly independent (orthogonal). Please try to be very careful about the meanings of the terms. [[User:SaraT|SaraT]] 17:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don't think that's the source of our confusion. I think the main problem is that, according to Newtonian mechanics and thus according to our mechanical intuition, orthogonal things tend to operate independently. Not only that, but a force exerted on an object is usually independent of the object's momentum.

:::::: In relativity, none of these things are true, due to the fact that velocities no longer add like vectors (and thus acceleration no longer incurs a cumulative change in velocity in the usual way.) This is seen as some sort of logical flaw or paradox simply because it contradicts the deeply ingrained intuition that came from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 18:10:46 EST 2009

== Counterexample 4 (limiting behavior) ==

For the fourth "counterexample," the author points out that the momentum <math>p=mv\gamma</math> does not approach the momentum of light as <math>m\rightarrow 0</math> and <math>v\rightarrow c</math>

Aside from the mathematical sloppiness of taking two independent variables to a limit at the same time, at unspecified rates, these sorts of "discontinuities" can be found in just about any scientific theory. In Newtonian mechanics, for example, take the orbit of a planet as the planet's mass goes to 0. For any nonzero mass the orbit is an ellipse; at m=0 it is suddenly a straight line. Is this a "counterexample" to Newton's laws?

Or in electronics, I=V/R. The limiting case is no voltage, no resistance, no current; but if someone foolishly took V/R as both V and R go to zero, he would get a nonsensical answer. Let them both go at the same rate and you get I=1. Is this a "counterexample" to basic electronics?

Or more to the point, momentum in Newtonian mechanics is <math>p=mv</math>, and this also fails to give the momentum of a photon at m=0, v=c. Again, is that a "counterexample" to <math>p=mv</math>? Will we see this entry in a corresponding page of "Counterexamples to Newton's laws?"

But none of these are counterexamples or "discontinuities": they are just a misinterpretation of the formulas. You don't get the momentum of a photon by taking the momentum formula for a mass and setting m=0 and v=c. That's just not what the formula means, or what they are for. This item should also be removed.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Tue Dec 15 10:16:21 EST 2009

== Counterexample 9 (Jesus action-at-a-distance) ==

The quoted verse doesn't strongly suggest "action-at-a-distance" in the relativistic sense. Light could travel the distances mentioned in the passage in a fraction of a second, which is well within the precision given in the verse (an hour). The verse and relativity are not in contradiction here. This should be removed.

:I have an open mind about it. In the the healing of the centurion's servant, if the Greek is translated as same "moment" then relativity is impossible, but if translated as the same "hour" then there is no conflict with relativity.

:But the healing of the centurion's servant is probably not the only place where there is [[action at a distance]] in the [[Bible]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Any distance on the earth is less than 20,000km. A force acting with the speed of light takes less than 1/15,000 ≈ 0.0000667 seconds for this distance.

::I don't think how eyewitnesses could spot such a short time...

::So, there may probably be no other places where [[action at a distance]] is described in the [[Bible]].

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:17, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::You make an interesting point, Frank. But according to this site, it takes 1/7.4 seconds for light to circle the globe, which is much longer than your figure.[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_times_does_light_go_around_the_Earth_in_one_second] More generally and more importantly, there is the issue of how this action in the Bible ''isn't'' light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::::Indeed, an error in my calculation: 20,000,000m / 300,000,000 m/sec = 1/15 seconds.
::::Fast enough, still.
::::Whether the action in the Bible ''isn't'' light doesn't matter: it is indistinguishable from an action happening at the speed of light for the witnesses of the time, so it doesn't say anything about the validity of the theory of relativity...
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 19:46, 5 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank you make an interesting point, and I have an open mind about it. But I'm not entirely convinced. When the woman cured herself of bleeding and Jesus felt power leaving him, that sounds more like heat than light. And for heat to travel virtually instantaneously (or at the speed of light) WOULD violate the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 5 January 2010 (EST)

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that point, Andy - I'm not sure this action could comment on relativity any more than the sun stopping for Joshua could comment on the Copernican model of the solar system. If God wanted heat/light to travel at some finite speed except in certain instances, how is that different from the sun and moon moving in the sky, except in certain instances? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:32, 5 January 2010 (EST)

: I have an open mind about this. You make good points, Jacob. But your analogy is not perfect because:

*the Joshua account might be understood as the ''perception'' of the army that they sun did not set until they completed their job, but the healing in the [[New Testament]] cannot be explained as mere perception
*if the Joshua account is taken absolutely literally, Newtonian mechanics does not say it is impossible, while relativity does say [[action-at-a-distance]] is impossible

I look forward to our translation work on the Joshua passage (and New Testament passages) to see if that brings forth insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)
:Your second point is a good one, and I suppose my example wasn't very good. But on a different note, what makes you say that the Joshua account might be understood as only a perception of the army? I think I'm going to go translate that chapeter, I'll be interested to see what Hebrew words are used for that bit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:49, 5 January 2010 (EST)

::Shall we look at it next? Joshua 10:11-14, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:18, 5 January 2010 (EST)

IMO, the discussion is a little bit bizarre: Following [[David Hume]]'s definition of a [[miracle]] as a "a violation of the laws of nature", for evaluating the ''laws of natures'', miracles can't be taken into account.

As I said earlier: we shouldn't try to restrict God with the laws of our logic - or even physics.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, perhaps what you mean is that you don't want the logic of the Bible to be used to evaluate claims by scientists. If so, I completely disagree. And so would [[Isaac Newton]] and most great scientists.

:As our [[Conservative Bible Translation]] project is revealing, Jesus said his works were not miracles, but signs. So any definition of miracle by Hume (who, by the way, leaned toward atheistic rather than Christianity) is not terribly helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::So, what's the definition of a ''sign'', then? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:06, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::The same as its name suggests: a disclosure of reality, rather than a violation of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*I took Hume's definition as I found it on conservapedia's page on [[miracle]]s.
::::*The page on [[sign]]s doesn't describe Jesu works - perhaps you can fix this
::::*If you don't like Hume, what's about [[Thomas Aquinas]]:

:::::''Now, there are various degrees and orders of these miracles. Indeed, the highest rank among miracles is held by those events in which something is done by God which nature never could do. For example, that two bodies should be coincident; that the sun reverse its course, or stand still; that the sea open up and offer a way through which people may pass. And even among these an order may be observed. For the greater the things that God does are, and the more they are removed from the capacity of nature, the greater the miracle is. Thus, it is more miraculous for the sun to reverse its course than for the sea to be divided.

:::::''Then, the second degree among miracles is held by those events in which God does something which nature can do, but not in this order. It is a work of nature for an animal to live, to see, and to walk; but for it to live after death, to see after becoming blind, to walk after paralysis of the limbs, this nature cannot do—but God at times does such works miraculously. Even among this degree of miracles a gradation is evident, according as what is done is more removed from the capacity of nature.

:::::''Now, the third degree of miracles occurs when God does what is usually done by the working of nature, but without the operation of the principles of nature. For example, a person may be cured by divine power from a fever which could be cured naturally, and it may rain independently of the working of the principles of nature.

::::*Acts 2:43 ''Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles'' (KJB) So, we have ''miraculous signs'' and ''wonders''

::::*John 2:11 ''This was the first of the miracles Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and by doing showed his glory, and so his disciples believed in him. '' (CBP) ''Changing water into wine'' is something nature never could do: it's an outright miracle, miraculous sign, whatever...

::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::That's great recitation, Frank, but how about simply applying logic yourself? You're a bright guy, why simply hunt and repeat quotes from others? On this site we encourage ''thinking'' in a logical way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:21, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::I'm trying to use the fact that I'm standing on the shoulder of giants... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:23, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::How about using "the fact" of simple logic and the power of your ''own'' mind?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::To make it as clear as possible in my own words:
::::::::*I won't restrict God by laws which men made or observed. Can I understand God's ways? Can I expect God to act the way I think to be logical? That would be [[hubris]].
::::::::*Testing scientific hypotheses using God's miracles or signs seems to be odd!
::::::::But which part of Thomas Aquinas's definition of miraculous events didn't you like? Granted, he had a slightly other view of the ''capacity of nature'' than we have today, but his line of reasoning was as valid in the 15th century as it is today! I hoped that his definition would be more ''helpful'' than that of David Hume.

::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:41, 6 January 2010 (EST)

== lack of a single useful device ==

At conservapedia's article on the [[Global Positioning System]], one can read:

''These receivers rely on precisely timing signals sent from GPS satellites, with corrections for atmospheric attenuation and relativistic effects.''

GPS seems to be a useful device!

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Great catch of a misleading statement, Frank! I've corrected it.

:Our [[theory of relativity]] entry explains how it did not aid the development of [[GPS]]. The repeated attempt by relativists to falsely claim credit for [[GPS]] ''reinforces'' the lack of any legitimate contributions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::Well, you are consistent! Just another question: What's about [[particle accelerator]]s? Generally, the theory of relativity is used to explain why it takes more energy to accelerate an electron from 200,000,000 m/sec to 200,002,000 m/sec than from 2,000 m/sec to 4,000 m/sec.

::Have you thought about an explanation for this phenomenon?

::Accelerators have applications beyond basic research!

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:02, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::Frank, I have an open mind about this, but I'm not aware of a single benefit from what you describe, nor do you identify one. Do you have an open mind about this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::*Synchrotron radiation is [http://www.physik.uni-kiel.de/kfs/Anwendung/medicine.php used in medicine]
::::*So, may I ask again: what your explanation for the phenomenon? I suppose you are aware of the phenomenon I described above?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:47, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Frank, inventors and doctors and engineers don't typically even bother learning relativity. Should I repeat that? Complain to engineering departments and medical schools if you think that should change. Nothing useful has even been designed or built using relativity. If you want to look and look and look for a counterexample then you'll be wasting your time. I'm not going to waste mine. This is my final reply on this topic for now. Do something logical, such as editing the Bible, and after benefiting from that experience we can revisit this issue in a month or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 6 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Why does it matter whether the users of the invention learn relativity? Most users of microwaves never learn Maxwell's equations either. That doesn't mean that the laws are irrelevant to the gadget's operation.

::::::Likewise, the engineers who correct the clocks of GPS satellites may not know or care that relativistic effects are behind the clock skew. But that dodges the point that relativistic effects are real, observable, and must be corrected for in several useful inventions.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

== GPS revisited ==

The same Tom von Flandern who is quoted in the article on the [[theory of relativity]] saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein", wrote in an article in 1998:

''So we can state that the clock rate effect predicted by GR is confirmed to within no worse than ±200 / 45,900 or about 0.7%, and that predicted by SR is confirmed to within ±200 / 7,200 or about 3%. This is a very conservative estimate. In an actual study, most of that maximum 200 ns/day variance would almost certainly be accounted for by differences between planned and achieved orbits, and the predictions of relativity would be confirmed with much better precision.''

As for how the satellites take into account the relativistic effects, here is his explanation of the so-called ''factory offset'' of the atomic clocks for the satellites:

''GPS atomic clocks in orbit would run at rates quite different from ground clocks if allowed to do so, and this would complicate usage of the system. So the counter of hyperfine cesium transitions (or the corresponding phenomenon in the case of rubidium atomic clocks) is reset on the ground before launch so that, once in orbit, the clocks will tick off whole seconds at the same average rate as ground clocks. GPS clocks are therefore seen to run slow compared to ground clocks before launch, but run at the same rate as ground clocks after launch when at the correct orbital altitude.''

Seems to me that relativistic effects have to be taken into account.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:13, 6 January 2010 (EST)

:Frank, your intuition ("seems to me") is wrong here, and the entry explains it clearly. GPS is a work of engineering and any timing discrepancies between the satellite and ground are obviously better handled directly by synchronization rather than asking a physicist what he thinks of relativity. Engineers don't even bother taking general relativity courses, let alone try to build a satellite system using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2009-12-15T15:18:14Z

NgSmith: /* Counterexample 4 (limiting behavior) */ new section

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2009-12-13T23:11:01Z

NgSmith:

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2009-12-13T01:57:12Z

NgSmith:

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2009-12-12T17:57:51Z

NgSmith:

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-12-08T23:44:46Z

NgSmith: /* Reply to Johanan Raatz */

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

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

For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 1|Archive 1]], [[Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 2|Archive 2]]



==Barack Obama==

You misrepresent Barack Obama as an author of "The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics" by claiming in footnote 44 that "Tribe and Obama argued that...." Tribe is the sole author of the paper, and only thanks Obama (among others) for "analytic and research assistance". It's also misleading to claim that Obama "helped publish" the article, which implies that he somehow exerted political influence to get it published, knew the publishers, or was active in the publishing process. Obama was active in the research process, not the publication process.
--[[User:MikeThicke|MikeThicke]] 16:13, 8 December 2009 (EST)

== Jfraatz's comments ==

:: Andrew;

::Relativity predicts absurd physical discontinuities

::I've studied relativity in depth, and those paradoxes all have very neat resolutions once you account for the change in reference frame.

::"and it contradicts logic,"

::That doesn't follow. Relativity is based on two premises and follows very logically from them.

::"the evidence,"

::On the contrary:

::Special relativity:

::1. E=mc^2: nuclear power and the atomic bomb
2. Time dilation: The airplane experiments, and the time dilation of subatomic particle decay rates in a particle accelerator.
3.Mass increase: The exponential increase in energy required to get things fractionally closer to the speed of light.

::General relativity:

::1. Prediction of a non-static universe.
2. Gravity waves -detected by their combined perturbative effect to a the rotation of a neutron star
3. Gravitational microlensing.
4. Time dilation experiments conducted with skyscrapers
5. Red-shifting near gravitational sources.

::"and the Bible."

::That is a very bizarre claim. There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts relativity and it is about like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. I'm curious. Where did you get this idea?

::"The biggest promoters of relativity today are more liberal than the Democratic Party, and that's saying a lot."

::""First of all that's an ad hominem. Secondly it's not true. The physics department at my SECULAR university has a higher predominance of conservative and Christian people than any of the other sciences and much more so than the Marxist laden humanities departments.

::The professor who taught my relativity class -who happens to be the department expert on general relativity and quantum gravity- even invited us all to a talk after class once regarding the possibility of intelligent design of the physical constants. As it turns out this talk about intelligent design of the physical constants was given by a world famous physicist who happened to specialize in general relativity.

::"Promoting relativity causes a great deal of harm in how people view the world,"

::No, you're confusing relativity with relativism. The two are radically different. My other interest is in philosophy and the people in the philosophy dept. -many of whom are left-wing- laugh at the postmodernists who try to prove relativism with relativity.

::One is a physical theory based on constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames and the equivalence of physics in all reference frames. The other is a moral and epistemological theory that says that there are no absolutes. Special and general relativity are founded on absolutes. RelativiTY does not cause any harm. RelativiSM causes a lot of trouble. The two have nothing in common though save for a similar sounding name.

::"and has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars on fruitless projects like LIGO."

::LIGO, (which my university participates in -we do the supercomputer analysis of the data) has no results yet because they still need to make the instruments another order of magnitude stronger before they can get results.

::And LIGO is not a waste of money. Once they can detect gravity waves they will have a whole new way to study astronomy. The idea is to turn it into the gravity wave equivalent of a telescope. Instead of seeing the universe in light only we can see it in gravity waves as well. The advances in science accomplished by this are well worth the money put into them. A few million dollars is nothing compared to the billions the government wastes on social programs, and is a legitimate usage of money rather than money wasted on welfare programs. It's like funding NASA, you'd agree that manned moon landings are worth while right?

::":You've heard none of this before because liberals control universities and don't allow open discussion and debate about their pet theories."

::No I've heard them before, but the arguments made are easily debunked and are rather pseudoscientific in nature. Usually the people making them don't even understand the theory properly. And I have no idea where you get the idea that they would have a political agenda that needs relativity to support it. Once again relativity and relativism are two very different things. Einstein even once said that he though that the theory of relativity was a poor choice of names.

::"Perhaps you think man-made global warming is not a liberal theory either?"

::Where do you come off comparing the two? One is a derived science open to much biased interpretation and data manipulation, the other is experimentally validated every time we turn on a particle accelerator. In fact some of the experiments they do at these labs require relativity to work. If relativity is false then they could not be doing the experiments that they are doing.

::And no Newtonian Mechanics and Atomic theory are not liberal theories either.

::I'm awfully curious as to what motivated this anti-relativity view. Your implication that relativity is "liberal" in any sense is highly bizarre. Also why single out relavity rather than QM classical mechanics or electrodynamics?

--[[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

::::I would like to note that I have used a political analog of general relativity as a means to create a model for how to warp the political fabric with corporatism so as to correct the democratic failure causing abortion. By modifying the analog of an "economic status-debt" tensor one can leverage misbehaving abortive parents into proper behavior by using corporate leverage on the democratic process. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

Johanan, relativity is disproved by the Pioneer anomaly, for starters. The absurd discontinuities include what happens in the limit as velocity approaches the speed of light. The logical flaws include the defect of relativistic mass. Relativity has produced nothing of value, and certainly not the achievements you claim above. It's wasted hundreds of millions in taxpayer money and confused the minds of many.

Pick your very best argument and be concise if you have an open mind and want to discuss this. If your mind is closed and made up, then I recommend Wikipedia for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::First of all there are no absurd results when you reach relativistic velocities. Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed -unless you want to say that empirically observed measurements of such can not be so because they are illogical.

::MY BEST ARGUMENT: As a physics major I have done the Michelson-Morley experiment in my modern physics lab and seen the results with my own eyes. You can not tell me that relativity is based on assumptions rather than observations, as I have seen the very same observations that are the basis for relativity. Unless of course you are arguing that it can't be so and therefore my eyes must be deceiving me.

::QUESTIONS: 1.)How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?
::2.) You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this. Saying this is almost like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. In what way does it contradict the Bible?
::3.)You compared relativity to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). One is prone to much more interpretation than relativity and has been found to be based on fraudulent data. The effects of relativity by contrast empirically confirmed every time the particle accelerator at Fermilab turns on, and it is far more simple to observe and confirm than AGW. So my question is where do you come off comparing the two?

::COMMENTS: 1.)As someone who believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason. Despite your implication that relativity is a "liberal" theory I am no liberal and am therefore not so open-minded that my brains fall out. If something doesn't fit into objective a priori principles and empirical observation I have a hard time taking it seriously -I don't buy post-modernism or the idea that you can determine truth outside of objective means.
::2.)Relativists in physics are not particularly liberal. My special relativity professor who happens to be the dept. specialist on relativity and quantum gravity even invited us to a talk after class one day. The topic was on the possibility of the intelligent design of the physical constants -at a secular university no less. The talk itself was to be given by a prominent physicist who also happened to specialize in relativity. You can't tell me that an extremely liberal professor would be inviting his students to talks on the possibility of intelligent design.
::3.)RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM. I also happen to have a minor in philosophy, and relativism is not based on the same premises as relativity, nor does it have anything in common with relativity. The post-modernist sorts that try to prove the latter from the former are laughed at by philosophers of both left and right-wing stripes. You needn't worry about relativity causing relativism.
::4.)Gravity waves have already been confirmed by there effects on neutron star rotation. LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves but rather as a telescope to see the universe in a "gravitational spectrum" in the same way you would normally see it with light. This is why they are spending so much money on it and it is well worth the cost -even $1-2billion. It will revolutionize astronomy once they increase the sensitivity by another order of magnitude or so -they are very close now. If you want to slash spending, the social programs spend hundreds of times that. LIGO isn't the money sucker, welfare etc. is. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

: No, the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity. It barely has anything to do with relativity. How do you think that NASA is ever able to have any successful space missions, if all its theories of gravity have been disproved? There are no discontinuities or logical flaws. Relativistic mass was already being confirmed in 1901, just a couple of years after it was predicted. Do you have any reliable sources for any of what you say? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:13, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::You say, "the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity." What do you think the "anomaly" is from, if not relativity?

::Perhaps you agree with Wikipedians, who admit that the data from the spacecraft is contrary to what is "predicted", but the Wikipedians refuse to admit that the contradicted theory is the theory of relativity![http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly] Maybe that omission fools some people, but it doesn't fool conservatives aware of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:28, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::Since when is relativity is a liberal theory? I have yet to see a good argument to this effect. [[User:jfraatz:Johanan Raatz]]

::: I was the one who told you about the Pioneer anomaly. Possible explanations are listed on the WP page. One possibility is a gravitational effect different from known theories (Newton and relativity). But what is your point? The WP page already says that. You are not addressing the errors in this article. The stuff about discontinuities, hypotheses, resistance, and quantum mechanics are all false. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:25, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::::The "point" is that Wikipedians (liberal wannabee scientists) won't state which theory is contradicted by the data. You're just guessing when you say "Newton and relativity."

::::This is like the feminists who won't use certain words, like "girl" or "gentlemanly". If confronted with a situation where no substitute works, a feminist will still find a way not to say the "forbidden" word. They'll congratulate a new mother on her baby girl by calling her a "baby woman"!

::::Try saying expressly on Wikipedia that the theory of relativity is contradicted by the Pioneer data and watch that be erased by its liberal editors. Do you think that is science, or logic?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:32, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::::: I am not guessing. Just read the WP page. It says, "The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviation ... slowing down slightly more than expected ... The anomaly has no universally accepted explanation." Possible explanations include "modification of the law of gravity." Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range. They are either both accurate or inaccurate. What more do you want? The article has links to modified gravity theories. What does this have to do with this CP relativity page? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:31, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::::: You are guessing that "Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range." I doubt they predict identical results for this Pioneer data. Does the Pioneer anomaly contradict only the theory of relativity, or Newtonian gravity also? Are the data closer to one theory than the other? If this were science, then the Wikipedia article would say. Of course, this isn't really science, and Wikipedians won't expressly admit the data conflicts with relativity. If you inserted mention of the theory of relativity into the Wikipedia page, then I bet it would be erased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 26 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::I would expect that the results at that range would be in the margin of error for both theories. General relativity only starts to become significant in extreme gravitational fields and the earth does not have an extreme gravitational field.

:::::::As for Wikipedia covering up evidence regarding relativity to suit a liberal bias, let me make a comment about that. I happen to also be active on Wikipedia, and from my experience the kind of people that edit the science pages are not the same kind of people who generally edit the political/philosophy pages. I have noticed a great deal of political bias in the people who dominate the latter pages, but not at all the former. I really don't think they did is -if they did it at all- for political reasons. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

::::::::The results are not within the standard of error. You're in denial: the results contradict the theory of relativity. And Wikipedians will never allow that truth on their pages. The Wikipedians who edit the science paiges there are just as liberal as those who edit the other pages, and it's implausible to suggest otherwise. Check out the global warming pages on Wikipedia, for example, if you doubt this. (My response to your earlier comments are below).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::: The Pioneer anomaly is not known to contradict either relativity or Newtonian gravity. Contradicting gravity is just one of several possible explanations, and no one is accepted. If it contradicts one then it contradicts the other, as the two theories say the same for Pioneer data. The gravity on Pioneer is extremely weak, and far outside the range where relativity would make any difference. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:20, 27 November 2009 (EST)

== Reply to Johanan Raatz ==

Mr. Raatz said, "Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed ...."

:Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''. Predictably you will say you never thought or heard about this logical problem before, so please then comment on ''why'' you've never thought or heard about this logical flaw. By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades.

:: Sorry to interrupt, but the answer is yes, according to relativity. If a particle is zipping by at high speed, any addition to its velocity---whether along or orthogonal to its direction of motion---is described by a Lorentz transformation multiplied into the Tv for its current velocity.

:: This is not some obscure question that I expect physicists to have never thought about. The addition rules for velocity in parallel and orthogonal directions are a very basic component of special relativity, and directly follow from the Lorentz transformation. All of this is elementary linear algebra. Indeed, relativistic momentum (and what people loosely call "relativistic mass") can be derived from those velocity addition laws by differentiating them with respect to time.

:: You seem to be implying that this is some sort of internal contradiction. But why? There is nothing contradictory about the fact that speeding up a particle is progressively harder, even if you try to do it orthogonally to its present velocity relative to you. The basic fact is that for momentum to be conserved under the Lorentz transformation, you need a factor of gamma in the momentum (which, again, is loosely interpreted as a "relativistic mass", since p=mv*gamma combined with a classial p=mv leads people to see m*gamma as the "mass" part. I find that interpretation more confusing than useful, but it has many adherents.) --[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::If the new force is orthogonal (perpendicular) to the velocity, then it should be unaffected by the relativistic mass. Indeed, some relativists have shifted to "relativistic momentum," which is a vector, to try to avoid this logical dilemma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:45, 29 November 2009 (EST)

:::: Why? I see no reason why forces "should" behave that way.

:::: Forces do behave that way in Newtonian mechanics, but they don't behave that way in special relativity. That is because in relativity, velocity vectors do not add.

:::: There is no reason why relativity "should" predict effects that are in line with our Newtonian intuition. The only thing a theory should predict is the correct outcome of an experiment.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

Mr. Raatz says his "best argument" is the "Michelson-Morley experiment."

:If that's your best argument, then this case is closed. That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.

Mr. Raatz asks, "How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?"

:What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.

Mr. Raatz says, "You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this."

:You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible. Why is that? The Bible sells 100 times more copies ''annually'' than books on the New York Times bestseller list, and is undeniably the most influential book in history (Newton attributed his insights to it), yet relativists don't read it. Do you? The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.

Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable.

Mr. Raatz says he "believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason" and "I am no liberal."

:Really? So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray? I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it.

Mr. Raatz says, "RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM."

:Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism. Check out the first few pages of the respected historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, where he links the "discovery" of relativity to the popularity of moral relativism that followed. He's studied history more than you have, I think.

Mr. Raatz wrote, "LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves ...."

:LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons. You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle. How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do? That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)

== Reply to Andrew Schlafly ==

*1.) :Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''.

The same relativistic mass is not observed in the reference frame orthogonal to the motion. However the total velocity between two objects can be calculated using the Pythagorean theorem in all 3 directions. This is the velocity which is used to calculate relativistic mass and other Lorentz transformations.

*2.) "By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades."

Yes because relativistic mass has been OBSERVED for decades.

*3.) If that's your best argument, then this case is closed. That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.

If the light had been traveling at different velocities as the Earth orbited the sun why then did I not see different interference patterns? In the experiment I indirectly observed the speed of light to be the same regardless of reference frame.

Question you have a background in law and engineering. Do you have a background in physics?

*4.)What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.

Hmm, ok so there is another theory out there that explains why time slows down with respect to another reference frame, that is not relativity? I would very much like to hear about this theory.

*5.)Do you?

Yes I've read the Bible. And I find it insulting that you would assume otherwise.

*6.) You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible. Why is that?

Well are you going to tell me what this supposed contradiction is? I looked at the conservative words essay and I found "non-local" there. In the definition I found a reference to Jesus healing the sick kid from far away. If you mean to tell me that this violated relativity then you are wrong. First of all, such an action could have occurred at the speed of light and would have allowed for the kid to get better before his father returned home. Secondly Jesus being omnipotent has access to Hilbert space and therefore could operate outside of space-time.

*7.)The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.

You clearly do not know my physics dept. then. Of all the science depts. this one has the highest number of Christians and conservatives than any of the others. In fact many of my friends (the same ones who study relativity) would read the Bible in the physics lounge. (and this was not isolated to the undergrads)

*8.)Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable.

That's not what I was asking. I was asking how one theory -relativity(independent of who believes it) is comparable to another -AGW (independent of those who believe it)

*9.)Really? So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray? I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it.

Try me! You bet wrong. Prayer in schools is very good for the salutory effect it has on society. Read Irving Kristol.

*10.)Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism.

Yes that's because the masses are idiots. That's not relativities fault though. It should be noted that Einstein thought that the label of "relativity" for his theory was shoddy and that he wanted a better one. Unfortunately "relativity" stuck and as a result some idiots took it the wrong way. I can not do anything about this, but it does not imply that relativity is wrong.

*11.):LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons.

No gravity waves. Gravitons are far smaller and according to my personal model of quantum gravity do not exist as such. (well technically they "exist" in a sense, but that would be a bad way of thinking about how gravity is quantized)Gravitons are a shoddy way to describe the real phenomenon. Gravity waves are not the same as gravitons though.

*12.)"You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle.
In today's world that level of money is not a boondoggle. Social spending is a boondoggle, cap&trade is a boondoggle, and healthcare is a boondoggle, spending a little money on sciences is not a boondoggle. Look in comparison to other programs this is a pittance. It's like the liberals who complain that NASA is taking up too much money when it is only spending less than 10 bill a year compared to the 100's of billions eaten up by their social programs.

Besides I am a neoconservative and do not have exactly the same philosophy on government programs that other conservatives might. I mostly agree on opposing socialism in government programs, but that isn't the same thing as basic projects for the public good or for the advancement of science.

*13.)"How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do?"

Fair enough. I believe LIGO accepts donations as well.

*14.)That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.

Most people would like to revolutionize astronomy with the gravitational equivalent of the telescope wouldn't you agree?

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

P.S. if you really think I'm a liberal, look up my group MemeShock on facebook. You will see that I am most definitely not a liberal nor a leftist. Please stop making assumptions about me.

:'''REPLY''':

:1)Johanan wrote, "The same relativistic mass is not observed in the reference frame orthogonal to the motion."

::No one changed the reference frame. I said there is a force orthogonal to the high velocity that supposedly causes an increase in relativistic mass. Mass is a scalar, not a vector. Does that force have to contend with the relativistic mass as claimed? You even say that this has been observed, so the answer should be easy for you.

:3) Johanan wrote, "If the light had been traveling at different velocities as the Earth orbited the sun why then did I not see different interference patterns?"

::Michelson-Morley suggests that an ether does not exist, but it in no way proves the many claims of relativity.

: Johanan wrote, "Question you have a background in law and engineering. Do you have a background in physics?"

:: So you're going to try to plug weaknesses in your argument with a personal put-down? Not here.

: Johanan wrote, "Yes I've read the Bible."

:: Many read it in their youth. That makes the ''termination of reading the Bible'' by them all the more striking. I asked if you read the Bible (now). Once people buy into relativity, they stop reading it. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. That speaks volumes about what relativity really is.

:6) Johanan wrote, "Well are you going to tell me what this supposed contradiction is? I looked at the conservative words essay and I found "non-local" there. In the definition I found a reference to Jesus healing the sick kid from far away. If you mean to tell me that this violated relativity then you are wrong. First of all, such an action could have occurred at the speed of light and would have allowed for the kid to get better before his father returned home. Secondly Jesus being omnipotent has access to Hilbert space and therefore could operate outside of space-time."

::The healing occurred instantaneously and, yes, that contradicts the assumption in relativity about no information traveling faster than the speed of light. There are no exceptions allowed by relativity. It's a real contradiction. It's a not a "sign" as described by the Bible if it is impossible.

:7)Johanan wrote, "You clearly do not know my physics dept. then. Of all the science depts. this one has the highest number of Christians and conservatives than any of the others. In fact many of my friends (the same ones who study relativity) would read the Bible in the physics lounge. (and this was not isolated to the undergrads)

::Maybe you have 95-year-old pack-a-day cigarette smokers there too, who have never been sick a day in their lives. Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types. Keep in mind that many of the promoters of the phony man-made global warming are physics professors.

:8)Johanan wrote, "That's not what I was asking. I was asking how one theory -relativity(independent of who believes it) is comparable to another -AGW (independent of those who believe it)"

::The correlation is unmistakable. Perhaps both attract people who like to misuse science for liberal goals.

:9)Johanan wrote, "Prayer in schools is very good for the salutory effect it has on society. Read Irving Kristol."

::Do you support classroom prayer then? A clear "yes" would suffice.

:10)Johanan wrote, "... the masses are idiots. That's not relativities [sic] fault though. It should be noted that Einstein thought that the label of "relativity" for his theory was shoddy and that he wanted a better one. Unfortunately "relativity" stuck and as a result some idiots took it the wrong way. I can not do anything about this, but it does not imply that relativity is wrong."

::So ... you're fine with promoting something that is misleading the "masses" and harming their lives, as long as you can say it is their fault, not yours.

::Johanan, I spend my time helping people. Relativity has not helped a single person in any way, ever. It's misled and hurt a lot of people. Relativity is the most unproductive theory ever embraced, and it's a complete dead-end. I'm not going to waste more of my time on it, and I encourage you to open your mind and become more productive yourself.

:Johanan wrote, "P.S. if you really think I'm a liberal, look up my group MemeShock on facebook. You will see that I am most definitely not a liberal nor a leftist. Please stop making assumptions about me."

::You don't seem to be much of a conservative either. Conservatives advance society in a productive way. Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite that wastes taxpayer money, misleads well-intentioned students and pushes the masses toward relativism. Yet you're spending your time defending and promoting it. I'm moving on to more productive topics on this site, and hope you can do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:::It's not just an issue in the States; all over the world huge amounts of government (ie taxpayers') money is being spent promoting this theory. Why would governments spend so much on something that turns people away from the Bible? I think we all know the answer to that... [[User:TrondE|TrondE]] 23:08, 27 November 2009 (EST)

::::You're asking the wrong question TrondE. The question is "Does relativity turn people away from the Bible?" If you research relativity and relativism you'll discover that relativism only latches onto to relativity for incidental reasons. Furthermore the reasons for relativism's success exist for entirely different reasons. We'd have the 60's with or without Einstein. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::'''REPLY'''::

*Andy Wrote: "I said there is a force orthogonal to the high velocity that supposedly causes an increase in relativistic mass. Mass is a scalar, not a vector. Does that force have to contend with the relativistic mass as claimed?"

:::Yes.

:::You don't measure only one component of the velocity when you are measuring the relative velocity. You combine them with the Pythagorean theorem. So there is no change in mass when you are in a reference frame orthogonal to the moving object than when you are in a reference frame paralel to it.

*Andy Wrote: Michelson-Morley suggests that an ether does not exist, but it in no way proves the many claims of relativity.

:::Actually it's the basis for the postulate that the c is the same in all reference frames. You wrongly claimed that this was an assumption, but it is based on experimental evidence.

:::If the ether does not exist than "c" does not have a preferred reference frame to be constant in. Thus instead it is constant in all reference frames.

:::To be fair there was a third model "ballistic theory" which suggested that the photons moved at speed c with respect to their emitters, but this was ruled out by observation. It led to several optical effects that were not seen in astronomical photographs, notably in observations of binary stars in which the light from the two stars could be measured in an interferometer. If it were correct, the light from the stars should cause fringe shifting due to the velocity of the stars being added to the speed of the light, but again, no such effect could be seen. The only remaining model was the Lorentzian one.

*Andy Wrote: So you're going to try to plug weaknesses in your argument with a personal put-down? Not here.

:::No, I brought it up because you make several statements in the page which are blatantly erroneous. First of all you argue that relativity is not based on evidence but assumptions, which is simply not true as we are discussing here, then you do not seem to understand why quantum non-locality does not violate relativity, and lastly you ignore the vast experimental evidence in support of it. Most notably the massive time dilation observed in muon particles. I can only guess based on this that you don't have enough background in physics.

*Andy Wrote: "Many read it in their youth. That makes the ''termination of reading the Bible'' by them all the more striking."

Well I was just reading it earlier today and last week as well.

*Andy Wrote: "Once people buy into relativity, they stop reading it. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. That speaks volumes about what relativity really is."

:::That sounds strikingly like the "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. I don't know where you got the idea that reading relativity as opposed to any other theory caused this, but the connection you are implying is absurd and baseless. Where is your statistical evidence that tells you that people who read about relativity as opposed to say plate tectonic theory or germ theory are more likely to not read their Bible's afterwards? This suggestion that there is a connection is simply quite ridiculous.

*Andy wrote: "The healing occurred instantaneously and, yes, that contradicts the assumption in relativity about no information traveling faster than the speed of light. There are no exceptions allowed by relativity. It's a real contradiction. It's a not a "sign" as described by the Bible if it is impossible."

:::It's not a contradiction of relativity if Jesus can operate outside of space-time. Relativity does not say anything about what goes on outside of space-time. You failed to address my suggestion of this possibility though.

*Andy Wrote "Maybe you have 95-year-old pack-a-day cigarette smokers there too, who have never been sick a day in their lives. Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types. Keep in mind that many of the promoters of the phony man-made global warming are physics professors."

:::Look I don't know what personal experiences you had at Harvard, but coming from my dept. these claims are down right bizarre:

::::"Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types."

:::Well I'm denying it for one. Listen, you keep spouting this off, but there is simply no basis for it. Relativists are no more liberal than quantum theorists, particle physicists, or those who study superconductors. I haven't the slightest notion where you got this idea.

*Andy Wrote: "The correlation is unmistakable. Perhaps both attract people who like to misuse science for liberal goals."

:::Andy, part of this whole discussion is WHETHER OR NOT relativity supports a liberal goal NOT IF. To say that the correlation is unmistakable because those who promote relativity are misusing science for liberal goals is begging the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy, and does not resolve anything.

*Andy Wrote: "Do you support classroom prayer then? A clear "yes" would suffice."

:::Ok YES, and FYI I was also homeschooled from 1st grade to 12th, voted for Bush in 04, write conservative editorials for my school paper nearly every week, and run the largest right-wing memetic engineering group on facebook.

*Andy Wrote: "So ... you're fine with promoting something that is misleading the "masses" and harming their lives, as long as you can say it is their fault, not yours."

:::1.)Ok look, first of all relativISM appeared for reasons entirely different than relativITY. Supporters of relativISM seized upon relativITY to lend credence to their view. However, relativism would both exist and flourish WITHOUT relativity. The relativism in today's society is not caused by relativity. Relativity is merely incidental to relativism.

:::2.) Secondly, just because something can cause people to go to a wrong conclusion does not make that thing wrong. Relativism is a wrong conclusion. Relativity in my theory is a right premise. Just because some people use a non sequiter argument to jump from one to the other does not make relativity wrong. You have to understand that relativity is true or false INDEPENDENT of whether or not it causes certain people who are ignorant of relativity to be adherents of moral relativism.

:::3.) With this in mind I will note you might consider certain scientific discoveries as what Leo Strauss would think of as "dangerous truths." There are currently several such theories that if taken the wrong way might tend one towards atheism which in turn could lead to moral relativism. As such I prefer them to be left to the scientific world and not popularized in such a way to undermine moral values, however that does not make them any less true or false. I do not personally think of relativity to be one of these, but if you do that's fine, just remember that just because something might have adverse effects to the untrained mind doesn't make it any less true or false in itself.

*Andy Wrote: "Johanan, I spend my time helping people. Relativity has not helped a single person in any way, ever. It's misled and hurt a lot of people. Relativity is the most unproductive theory ever embraced, and it's a complete dead-end."

:::That's not true. It's led (not misled) people to make great advances in astronomy, and it HAS been productive in keeping particle's alive in particle accelerators for far longer than would normally be allowed. Furthermore it is useful in keeping GPS satellites on time when they start to slip off by a few seconds every year: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html GPS recievers calculate for gravitational time dilation to keep on track. Lastly you can't tell me that this if it works will not be both very cool and very useful: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/timetravel-01a.html

*Andy Wrote: "I'm not going to waste more of my time on it, and I encourage you to open your mind and become more productive yourself."

:::Then explain muon time dilation without relativity. I'm highly skeptical that another explanation exists, but if you can find one by all means share it.

*Andy Wrote:"You don't seem to be much of a conservative either. Conservatives advance society in a productive way. Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite that wastes taxpayer money,
misleads well-intentioned students and pushes the masses toward relativism. Yet you're spending your time defending and promoting it.

:::This is circular reasoning Andy. You start with your conclusion: "Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite" and argue back that therefore I must not be a conservative because conservatives are productive. Remember we are still debating whether or not relativity is productive. You also haven't proved why it misleads well-intentioned students. You can't argue that funding LIGO is liberal because relativity is an unproductive theory and therefore LIGO will be unproductive.

:::In a few years you might be surprised at what LIGO will do. I for one would love a new way to map dark matter. It would be a very nice way to figure out if I am on the right track with my quantum gravity theory for one thing.

*Andy Wrote: "I'm moving on to more productive topics on this site, and hope you can do likewise."

:::Don't worry, I intend to put together and edit many political pages that I think you will like! ;)

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

==Request for References==
Andy, you've said several times that learning relativity causes people to stop reading the bible, and that specialists in relativity are more liberal than physics professors (who are more liberal than college professors overall). Do you have any sources for these claims? In my experience, people in physics are as conservative as other fields of science, and more so than biologists. Thanks in advance for the sources. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 13:22, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:You can see plenty of evidence on the talk pages here. In addition, I've seen at least one survey indicating that the level of atheism is higher among physicists than, say, mathematics, despite the close connection between the fields. There are also prominent, widely promoted physicists who describe themselves as atheists, such as Richard Feynman and Steven Weinberg, more so than in mathematics or other analogous fields.

:Spend some time in a physics department, as I have, and you won't doubt that belief in relativity and reading/discussing the Bible are inversely correlated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:: Could you link to the study you have referenced above, or give some information on it? Also, as you've pointed out, knowing one person who smoked into their seventies and didn't get cancer does not prove anything. Similarly, the anecdotal evidence on this talk page doesn't verify your claim. The evidence from the talk page seems to lean the other way- most of the editors seem to think that plenty of physicists who believe in relativity also read the Bible, but it is all anecdotal. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 08:12, 29 November 2009 (EST)

:: Yes, there are some physicists who are atheists, but what is the relation to relativity? Can you even show me one person who understands relativity and does not believe it? There are people who think that relativity might have to be modified to explain some anomaly, or people who propose such hypotheses such as this [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space]. But who denies the basics of relativity? I'll count people inside or outside physics departments, but not articles like this CP page that are filled with inaccuracies about what relativity is. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::The defense of relativity grows increasingly illogical. Now the promoters' test is whether there is "one person who understands relativity and does not believe it?"

:::OK, let's try that test out. The Koran is written in Arabic, and I can't name one person who understands it who does not believe it. Does that mean, per your logic, that it must therefore be true? All liberal theories rely on double standards, and you've just established one for your theory.

:::Note, by the way, that relativity is a mathematical system. It does not adapt to counterexamples any more than number theory could adapt to a revelation that 1+1 did not quite equal 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes, there are a lot of people understand the Koran and do not believe it. Eg, here is a leftist-atheist-evolutionist who read the Koran (altho probably an English translation). [http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/the-dangers-of-islam-wright-vs-hitchens/]
:::: I am not arguing that relativity is true. I am just arguing to correct the errors in this CP article. If relativity does not have counterexamples, then why does the article complain about discontinuties and logic problems? It can be mathematically proved that no such discontinuities or logic problems exist.
:::: You say that belief in relativity is correlated with various other beliefs, but you offer no support at all. I do deny those correlations. They are contrary to my experience, and contrary to common sense. Do you have some examples of right-wingers who say that relativity is entirely wrong? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:54, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::::I found nothing of value in your link, and certainly nothing claiming that anyone read the real Koran (in Arabic) and didn't believe it. You have a [[double standard]] for relativity.

:::::But if you're not arguing that relativity is true, then that point is moot. Relativity has many counterexamples, and it looks like we need an entry analogous to [[counterexamples to evolution]]. The Pioneer "anomaly", the more precise Mercury perihelion data, the discontinuity as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, the logical problem of an orthogonal force on relativistic mass, the lack of curvature in overall space as observed by measurements, the universe near the Big Bang, and I think even new data for the pulsar for which the sole Nobel Prize for relativity tends to disprove it. As if that weren't enough, the Bible contradicts relativity also. As to people who say relativity is false, there's a long list (such as Tom Bethell) but I've already demonstrated that argument to be fallacious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:23, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::::::"Relativity has many counterexamples, and it looks like we need an entry analogous to counterexamples to evolution."

::::::Cherry-picking the anomalous data points that don't fit into relativity, while ignoring the vast majority of the evidence which does confirm it is not scientific. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:: "You can see plenty of evidence on the talk pages here." I don't think that makes a good citation for an encyclopedia article. Do we have any citations to something more concrete and objective? --[[user:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

::: Lack of Bible-reading is so prevalent among relativists that I hardly think a citation is needed to demonstrate it. Not to pick on editor Raatz, but take a look at his complete lack of Bible-related edits here despite his insistence that he still reads it: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Jfraatz]. '''''Indeed, it's difficult to imagine any theory other than relativity that so sours an impressionable student on the Bible'''''. The theory of evolution, perhaps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Andy- you have made the claim again, and now you are claiming its so obvious you don't need a citation, but it only appears obvious to you. Any single example is anecdotal- as you yourself have pointed out with your "one person who smokes into old age doesn't prove cigarettes don't cause cancer" argument. You are making a claim, and I for one would appreciate knowing why you believe it.

I cannot speak for Raatz, but I myself do read the bible, and the only contributions I have made to this project are attempted edits to relativity. The reason is that I am a physicist, and felt that my contributions would best be made in this specialized area. Conservapedia appears to have many knowledgeable of the bible, but few physicists. Not making bible related edits is not evidence of not reading the bible- it could be evidence of finding the current articles satisfactory. As a physicist, I find this relativity article simply embarrassing, and hence the endeavor to improve it. I encourage you, Andy, to take your famously open mind and sit down with a good introduction to the theory, and work through some standard introductory problems. I think that actually learning what you try to criticize may help greatly. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 16:06, 29 November 2009 (EST)

:WLink, all your edits are provoking controversies and arguing. Why not do something constructive? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 16:09, 29 November 2009 (EST)

::I honestly feel as if the most constructive thing I can do is to use my expertise as a physicist to edit this article, and the other physics related articles. Unfortunately, these changes have been reverted. Perhaps you are right, it is time I use my limited time for something constructive and leave this site. How many scientists and scientifically minded people do you think you lose due to arguments on this very page? --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 18:17, 30 November 2009 (EST)
:::Lastwordism, claims of authority, and puerile threats? You've been learning from [[Liberal style]], have you not? [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 18:20, 30 November 2009 (EST)
::::I'd be very sorry if this page pushed you off the site, WLink. I sometimes get exasperated with the constant bickering on this talk page as well; however, I've found other pages I can constructively edit in the meantime. There are definitely [[Classical mechanics|many]] [[Special theory of relativity|other]] [[Speed of light|pages]] that need work from people who know something about physics; I hope you decide to stay and help. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:26, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:::::WLink, I hope that you want to do more than make liberal edits to the [[Theory of Relativity]]. EvanW has good suggestions and I hope you can stay with an open mind. But we're not going to become like liberal, atheistic Wikipedia, which is already starting to sink like the Titanic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:07, 30 November 2009 (EST)

== A Word on Relativism ==

Despite implications made here relativism did not come into being or become popular due to relativity. The roots of modern popular relativism can be traced back to Freud and in particular a group of neo-Marxist intellectuals known as the "critical theorists" who combined Marx with Freud to argue that all morality was merely a construct to be "liberated" from:

http://mildcolonialboy.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/political-correctness-is-cultural-marxism-part-iii-speech-by-william-lind/

Basically they viewed all ideologies (even correct ones) as "oppressive." Therefore any correct moral system based on an objective ideology was "wrong" in their eyes. Thus no one moral system could be thought of as correct -hence relativism.

The critical theorists came over around WW2 to escape Germany and set up in the States. Here they then were the movers and shakers behind the counterculture of the 60's, which is where moral relativism comes from today.

Again it has nothing to do with relativity. It would have gone off on it's own with or without relativity.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:That overlooks what the leading British historian Paul Johnson says (he starts his book about the 20th century with a discussion of the theory of relativity, and how it led to increased relativism), that overlooks what the liberal law professor Laurence Tribe says (he wrote a law review article linking the theory of relativity to a call for more [[abortion]] "rights"), that overlooks what now-President [[Barack Obama]] did in allegedly helping with that article, and that downplays the dictionary dates for the terms:

::relativity (1834)
::relativism (1865), but its secondary meaning about moral relativity came later, I think, and its additional meaning is this: "relativity".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:42, 28 November 2009 (EST)

Jfrattz, I see that despite my admonition on your user talk page, you continue to engage in 90/10 bickering over relativity, with the same re-hashed points that you and countless others have brought up before. Go write a new article, or find one that could benefit from more information. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:43, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::I did a little Googling and found that, while many people have linked relativity to moral relativism, Einstein himself apparently disbelieved such links: "Asked what effect his theory would have on religion, he said: 'None. Relativity is a purely scientific matter and has nothing to do with religion'" [http://www.slate.com/id/74164/]. [http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=596 Another page] says (whether rightly or wrongly; I don't know) that "He himself held to firm standards of right and wrong and saw moral relativism... as a bankrupt philosophy." I think that the point of view of the discoverer of the theory should at least be mentioned. I'd add it myself, but the page's locked. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 15:42, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Evan, please read the top of this page. It is made clear that bringing up old points isn't helpful, and you'll find this point at [[Talk:Theory_of_relativity/Archive_1#Moral_Relativism_line_needs_to_go.]] Any questions you have about this subject can be answered there. Check the archives before posting. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:48, 29 November 2009 (EST)

::::Jacob's point is well-taken. That said, I will respond to Evan. Einstein's opinion on physics is relevant, but I don't see the significance of his opinions on religion, politics, philosophy, education or the media. Einstein was not an expert in American politics, for example. This suggestion falls into the same category as opinions by [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]] on when to use the atom bomb. He wasn't an expert on war or foreign relations, so his opinion on use was irrelevant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 29 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Thanks for the reference, Jacob... <quickly read old discussion...> Okay, it seems that the consensus there was to omit the section entirely. However, it seems to have come back in as the first paragraph in "Political aspects". I can see arguments for either including or excluding it. As for whether to include Einstein's opinion - good point, Andy. I reread the current page, and on second look, it doesn't seem to be as bad as [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]] seems to think. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 15:57, 29 November 2009 (EST)

== orthogonal force ==

ASchlafly and Jfraatz seem to have been talking past each other on the subject of what happens when a force is applied orthogonally vs. longitudinally to a relativistic particle. There is no need for the acrimony here, and there is no need for arguing over the significance of mass being a scalar rather than a vector.

The right way to analyze problems involving force and acceleration is with the "4-velocity", "4-acceleration", "4-momentum", and "4-force". These are the modern concepts that people use. The 4-velocity is a vector in spacetime. It is always a unit vector; it just "tilts" when a particle moves. The 4-momentum is the 4-velocity times the mass. That's the "rest mass". The notion of "relativistic mass" is old-fashioned. The right way to think about it is that the momentum increases faster than mv, doing so ''as if'' the mass had gone up. But it's better to think of the mass as staying the same, and the formula for momentum being <math>mv\gamma</math> rather than just mv.

The 4-acceleration is the rate of change in the 4-velocity, as measured by the proper time, and the 4-force is the rate of change of 4-velocity. Conservation of momentum applies, and says that 4-forces cancel, same as in Newton's laws. So you can find the deflection of a particle, correct for relativity, by checking conservation of momentum.

This stuff is treated in modern physics textbooks, such as Halliday and Resnick.

[[User:SaraT|SaraT]] 00:19, 2 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-12-08T23:31:44Z

NgSmith: Undo revision 727915 by NgSmith (Talk)

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

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

For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 1|Archive 1]], [[Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 2|Archive 2]]



==Barack Obama==

You misrepresent Barack Obama as an author of "The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics" by claiming in footnote 44 that "Tribe and Obama argued that...." Tribe is the sole author of the paper, and only thanks Obama (among others) for "analytic and research assistance". It's also misleading to claim that Obama "helped publish" the article, which implies that he somehow exerted political influence to get it published, knew the publishers, or was active in the publishing process. Obama was active in the research process, not the publication process.
--[[User:MikeThicke|MikeThicke]] 16:13, 8 December 2009 (EST)

== Jfraatz's comments ==

:: Andrew;

::Relativity predicts absurd physical discontinuities

::I've studied relativity in depth, and those paradoxes all have very neat resolutions once you account for the change in reference frame.

::"and it contradicts logic,"

::That doesn't follow. Relativity is based on two premises and follows very logically from them.

::"the evidence,"

::On the contrary:

::Special relativity:

::1. E=mc^2: nuclear power and the atomic bomb
2. Time dilation: The airplane experiments, and the time dilation of subatomic particle decay rates in a particle accelerator.
3.Mass increase: The exponential increase in energy required to get things fractionally closer to the speed of light.

::General relativity:

::1. Prediction of a non-static universe.
2. Gravity waves -detected by their combined perturbative effect to a the rotation of a neutron star
3. Gravitational microlensing.
4. Time dilation experiments conducted with skyscrapers
5. Red-shifting near gravitational sources.

::"and the Bible."

::That is a very bizarre claim. There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts relativity and it is about like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. I'm curious. Where did you get this idea?

::"The biggest promoters of relativity today are more liberal than the Democratic Party, and that's saying a lot."

::""First of all that's an ad hominem. Secondly it's not true. The physics department at my SECULAR university has a higher predominance of conservative and Christian people than any of the other sciences and much more so than the Marxist laden humanities departments.

::The professor who taught my relativity class -who happens to be the department expert on general relativity and quantum gravity- even invited us all to a talk after class once regarding the possibility of intelligent design of the physical constants. As it turns out this talk about intelligent design of the physical constants was given by a world famous physicist who happened to specialize in general relativity.

::"Promoting relativity causes a great deal of harm in how people view the world,"

::No, you're confusing relativity with relativism. The two are radically different. My other interest is in philosophy and the people in the philosophy dept. -many of whom are left-wing- laugh at the postmodernists who try to prove relativism with relativity.

::One is a physical theory based on constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames and the equivalence of physics in all reference frames. The other is a moral and epistemological theory that says that there are no absolutes. Special and general relativity are founded on absolutes. RelativiTY does not cause any harm. RelativiSM causes a lot of trouble. The two have nothing in common though save for a similar sounding name.

::"and has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars on fruitless projects like LIGO."

::LIGO, (which my university participates in -we do the supercomputer analysis of the data) has no results yet because they still need to make the instruments another order of magnitude stronger before they can get results.

::And LIGO is not a waste of money. Once they can detect gravity waves they will have a whole new way to study astronomy. The idea is to turn it into the gravity wave equivalent of a telescope. Instead of seeing the universe in light only we can see it in gravity waves as well. The advances in science accomplished by this are well worth the money put into them. A few million dollars is nothing compared to the billions the government wastes on social programs, and is a legitimate usage of money rather than money wasted on welfare programs. It's like funding NASA, you'd agree that manned moon landings are worth while right?

::":You've heard none of this before because liberals control universities and don't allow open discussion and debate about their pet theories."

::No I've heard them before, but the arguments made are easily debunked and are rather pseudoscientific in nature. Usually the people making them don't even understand the theory properly. And I have no idea where you get the idea that they would have a political agenda that needs relativity to support it. Once again relativity and relativism are two very different things. Einstein even once said that he though that the theory of relativity was a poor choice of names.

::"Perhaps you think man-made global warming is not a liberal theory either?"

::Where do you come off comparing the two? One is a derived science open to much biased interpretation and data manipulation, the other is experimentally validated every time we turn on a particle accelerator. In fact some of the experiments they do at these labs require relativity to work. If relativity is false then they could not be doing the experiments that they are doing.

::And no Newtonian Mechanics and Atomic theory are not liberal theories either.

::I'm awfully curious as to what motivated this anti-relativity view. Your implication that relativity is "liberal" in any sense is highly bizarre. Also why single out relavity rather than QM classical mechanics or electrodynamics?

--[[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

::::I would like to note that I have used a political analog of general relativity as a means to create a model for how to warp the political fabric with corporatism so as to correct the democratic failure causing abortion. By modifying the analog of an "economic status-debt" tensor one can leverage misbehaving abortive parents into proper behavior by using corporate leverage on the democratic process. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

Johanan, relativity is disproved by the Pioneer anomaly, for starters. The absurd discontinuities include what happens in the limit as velocity approaches the speed of light. The logical flaws include the defect of relativistic mass. Relativity has produced nothing of value, and certainly not the achievements you claim above. It's wasted hundreds of millions in taxpayer money and confused the minds of many.

Pick your very best argument and be concise if you have an open mind and want to discuss this. If your mind is closed and made up, then I recommend Wikipedia for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::First of all there are no absurd results when you reach relativistic velocities. Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed -unless you want to say that empirically observed measurements of such can not be so because they are illogical.

::MY BEST ARGUMENT: As a physics major I have done the Michelson-Morley experiment in my modern physics lab and seen the results with my own eyes. You can not tell me that relativity is based on assumptions rather than observations, as I have seen the very same observations that are the basis for relativity. Unless of course you are arguing that it can't be so and therefore my eyes must be deceiving me.

::QUESTIONS: 1.)How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?
::2.) You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this. Saying this is almost like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. In what way does it contradict the Bible?
::3.)You compared relativity to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). One is prone to much more interpretation than relativity and has been found to be based on fraudulent data. The effects of relativity by contrast empirically confirmed every time the particle accelerator at Fermilab turns on, and it is far more simple to observe and confirm than AGW. So my question is where do you come off comparing the two?

::COMMENTS: 1.)As someone who believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason. Despite your implication that relativity is a "liberal" theory I am no liberal and am therefore not so open-minded that my brains fall out. If something doesn't fit into objective a priori principles and empirical observation I have a hard time taking it seriously -I don't buy post-modernism or the idea that you can determine truth outside of objective means.
::2.)Relativists in physics are not particularly liberal. My special relativity professor who happens to be the dept. specialist on relativity and quantum gravity even invited us to a talk after class one day. The topic was on the possibility of the intelligent design of the physical constants -at a secular university no less. The talk itself was to be given by a prominent physicist who also happened to specialize in relativity. You can't tell me that an extremely liberal professor would be inviting his students to talks on the possibility of intelligent design.
::3.)RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM. I also happen to have a minor in philosophy, and relativism is not based on the same premises as relativity, nor does it have anything in common with relativity. The post-modernist sorts that try to prove the latter from the former are laughed at by philosophers of both left and right-wing stripes. You needn't worry about relativity causing relativism.
::4.)Gravity waves have already been confirmed by there effects on neutron star rotation. LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves but rather as a telescope to see the universe in a "gravitational spectrum" in the same way you would normally see it with light. This is why they are spending so much money on it and it is well worth the cost -even $1-2billion. It will revolutionize astronomy once they increase the sensitivity by another order of magnitude or so -they are very close now. If you want to slash spending, the social programs spend hundreds of times that. LIGO isn't the money sucker, welfare etc. is. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

: No, the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity. It barely has anything to do with relativity. How do you think that NASA is ever able to have any successful space missions, if all its theories of gravity have been disproved? There are no discontinuities or logical flaws. Relativistic mass was already being confirmed in 1901, just a couple of years after it was predicted. Do you have any reliable sources for any of what you say? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:13, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::You say, "the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity." What do you think the "anomaly" is from, if not relativity?

::Perhaps you agree with Wikipedians, who admit that the data from the spacecraft is contrary to what is "predicted", but the Wikipedians refuse to admit that the contradicted theory is the theory of relativity![http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly] Maybe that omission fools some people, but it doesn't fool conservatives aware of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:28, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::Since when is relativity is a liberal theory? I have yet to see a good argument to this effect. [[User:jfraatz:Johanan Raatz]]

::: I was the one who told you about the Pioneer anomaly. Possible explanations are listed on the WP page. One possibility is a gravitational effect different from known theories (Newton and relativity). But what is your point? The WP page already says that. You are not addressing the errors in this article. The stuff about discontinuities, hypotheses, resistance, and quantum mechanics are all false. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:25, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::::The "point" is that Wikipedians (liberal wannabee scientists) won't state which theory is contradicted by the data. You're just guessing when you say "Newton and relativity."

::::This is like the feminists who won't use certain words, like "girl" or "gentlemanly". If confronted with a situation where no substitute works, a feminist will still find a way not to say the "forbidden" word. They'll congratulate a new mother on her baby girl by calling her a "baby woman"!

::::Try saying expressly on Wikipedia that the theory of relativity is contradicted by the Pioneer data and watch that be erased by its liberal editors. Do you think that is science, or logic?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:32, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::::: I am not guessing. Just read the WP page. It says, "The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviation ... slowing down slightly more than expected ... The anomaly has no universally accepted explanation." Possible explanations include "modification of the law of gravity." Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range. They are either both accurate or inaccurate. What more do you want? The article has links to modified gravity theories. What does this have to do with this CP relativity page? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:31, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::::: You are guessing that "Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range." I doubt they predict identical results for this Pioneer data. Does the Pioneer anomaly contradict only the theory of relativity, or Newtonian gravity also? Are the data closer to one theory than the other? If this were science, then the Wikipedia article would say. Of course, this isn't really science, and Wikipedians won't expressly admit the data conflicts with relativity. If you inserted mention of the theory of relativity into the Wikipedia page, then I bet it would be erased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 26 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::I would expect that the results at that range would be in the margin of error for both theories. General relativity only starts to become significant in extreme gravitational fields and the earth does not have an extreme gravitational field.

:::::::As for Wikipedia covering up evidence regarding relativity to suit a liberal bias, let me make a comment about that. I happen to also be active on Wikipedia, and from my experience the kind of people that edit the science pages are not the same kind of people who generally edit the political/philosophy pages. I have noticed a great deal of political bias in the people who dominate the latter pages, but not at all the former. I really don't think they did is -if they did it at all- for political reasons. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

::::::::The results are not within the standard of error. You're in denial: the results contradict the theory of relativity. And Wikipedians will never allow that truth on their pages. The Wikipedians who edit the science paiges there are just as liberal as those who edit the other pages, and it's implausible to suggest otherwise. Check out the global warming pages on Wikipedia, for example, if you doubt this. (My response to your earlier comments are below).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::: The Pioneer anomaly is not known to contradict either relativity or Newtonian gravity. Contradicting gravity is just one of several possible explanations, and no one is accepted. If it contradicts one then it contradicts the other, as the two theories say the same for Pioneer data. The gravity on Pioneer is extremely weak, and far outside the range where relativity would make any difference. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:20, 27 November 2009 (EST)

== Reply to Johanan Raatz ==

Mr. Raatz said, "Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed ...."

:Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''. Predictably you will say you never thought or heard about this logical problem before, so please then comment on ''why'' you've never thought or heard about this logical flaw. By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades.

:: Sorry to interrupt, but the answer is yes, according to relativity. If a particle is zipping by at high speed, any addition to its velocity---whether along or orthogonal to its direction of motion---is described by a Lorentz transformation multiplied into the Tv for its current velocity.

:: This is not some obscure question that I expect physicists to have never thought about. The addition rules for velocity in parallel and orthogonal directions are a very basic component of special relativity, and directly follow from the Lorentz transformation. All of this is elementary linear algebra. Indeed, relativistic momentum (and what people loosely call "relativistic mass") can be derived from those velocity addition laws by differentiating them with respect to time.

:: You seem to be implying that this is some sort of internal contradiction. But why? There is nothing contradictory about the fact that speeding up a particle is progressively harder, even if you try to do it orthogonally to its present velocity relative to you. The basic fact is that for momentum to be conserved under the Lorentz transformation, you need a factor of gamma in the momentum (which, again, is loosely interpreted as a "relativistic mass", since p=mv*gamma combined with a classial p=mv leads people to see m*gamma as the "mass" part. I find that interpretation more confusing than useful, but it has many adherents.) --[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::If the new force is orthogonal (perpendicular) to the velocity, then it should be unaffected by the relativistic mass. Indeed, some relativists have shifted to "relativistic momentum," which is a vector, to try to avoid this logical dilemma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:45, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Mr. Raatz says his "best argument" is the "Michelson-Morley experiment."

:If that's your best argument, then this case is closed. That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.

Mr. Raatz asks, "How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?"

:What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.

Mr. Raatz says, "You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this."

:You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible. Why is that? The Bible sells 100 times more copies ''annually'' than books on the New York Times bestseller list, and is undeniably the most influential book in history (Newton attributed his insights to it), yet relativists don't read it. Do you? The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.

Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable.

Mr. Raatz says he "believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason" and "I am no liberal."

:Really? So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray? I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it.

Mr. Raatz says, "RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM."

:Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism. Check out the first few pages of the respected historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, where he links the "discovery" of relativity to the popularity of moral relativism that followed. He's studied history more than you have, I think.

Mr. Raatz wrote, "LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves ...."

:LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons. You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle. How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do? That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)

== Reply to Andrew Schlafly ==

*1.) :Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''.

The same relativistic mass is not observed in the reference frame orthogonal to the motion. However the total velocity between two objects can be calculated using the Pythagorean theorem in all 3 directions. This is the velocity which is used to calculate relativistic mass and other Lorentz transformations.

*2.) "By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades."

Yes because relativistic mass has been OBSERVED for decades.

*3.) If that's your best argument, then this case is closed. That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.

If the light had been traveling at different velocities as the Earth orbited the sun why then did I not see different interference patterns? In the experiment I indirectly observed the speed of light to be the same regardless of reference frame.

Question you have a background in law and engineering. Do you have a background in physics?

*4.)What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.

Hmm, ok so there is another theory out there that explains why time slows down with respect to another reference frame, that is not relativity? I would very much like to hear about this theory.

*5.)Do you?

Yes I've read the Bible. And I find it insulting that you would assume otherwise.

*6.) You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible. Why is that?

Well are you going to tell me what this supposed contradiction is? I looked at the conservative words essay and I found "non-local" there. In the definition I found a reference to Jesus healing the sick kid from far away. If you mean to tell me that this violated relativity then you are wrong. First of all, such an action could have occurred at the speed of light and would have allowed for the kid to get better before his father returned home. Secondly Jesus being omnipotent has access to Hilbert space and therefore could operate outside of space-time.

*7.)The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.

You clearly do not know my physics dept. then. Of all the science depts. this one has the highest number of Christians and conservatives than any of the others. In fact many of my friends (the same ones who study relativity) would read the Bible in the physics lounge. (and this was not isolated to the undergrads)

*8.)Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable.

That's not what I was asking. I was asking how one theory -relativity(independent of who believes it) is comparable to another -AGW (independent of those who believe it)

*9.)Really? So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray? I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it.

Try me! You bet wrong. Prayer in schools is very good for the salutory effect it has on society. Read Irving Kristol.

*10.)Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism.

Yes that's because the masses are idiots. That's not relativities fault though. It should be noted that Einstein thought that the label of "relativity" for his theory was shoddy and that he wanted a better one. Unfortunately "relativity" stuck and as a result some idiots took it the wrong way. I can not do anything about this, but it does not imply that relativity is wrong.

*11.):LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons.

No gravity waves. Gravitons are far smaller and according to my personal model of quantum gravity do not exist as such. (well technically they "exist" in a sense, but that would be a bad way of thinking about how gravity is quantized)Gravitons are a shoddy way to describe the real phenomenon. Gravity waves are not the same as gravitons though.

*12.)"You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle.
In today's world that level of money is not a boondoggle. Social spending is a boondoggle, cap&trade is a boondoggle, and healthcare is a boondoggle, spending a little money on sciences is not a boondoggle. Look in comparison to other programs this is a pittance. It's like the liberals who complain that NASA is taking up too much money when it is only spending less than 10 bill a year compared to the 100's of billions eaten up by their social programs.

Besides I am a neoconservative and do not have exactly the same philosophy on government programs that other conservatives might. I mostly agree on opposing socialism in government programs, but that isn't the same thing as basic projects for the public good or for the advancement of science.

*13.)"How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do?"

Fair enough. I believe LIGO accepts donations as well.

*14.)That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.

Most people would like to revolutionize astronomy with the gravitational equivalent of the telescope wouldn't you agree?

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

P.S. if you really think I'm a liberal, look up my group MemeShock on facebook. You will see that I am most definitely not a liberal nor a leftist. Please stop making assumptions about me.

:'''REPLY''':

:1)Johanan wrote, "The same relativistic mass is not observed in the reference frame orthogonal to the motion."

::No one changed the reference frame. I said there is a force orthogonal to the high velocity that supposedly causes an increase in relativistic mass. Mass is a scalar, not a vector. Does that force have to contend with the relativistic mass as claimed? You even say that this has been observed, so the answer should be easy for you.

:3) Johanan wrote, "If the light had been traveling at different velocities as the Earth orbited the sun why then did I not see different interference patterns?"

::Michelson-Morley suggests that an ether does not exist, but it in no way proves the many claims of relativity.

: Johanan wrote, "Question you have a background in law and engineering. Do you have a background in physics?"

:: So you're going to try to plug weaknesses in your argument with a personal put-down? Not here.

: Johanan wrote, "Yes I've read the Bible."

:: Many read it in their youth. That makes the ''termination of reading the Bible'' by them all the more striking. I asked if you read the Bible (now). Once people buy into relativity, they stop reading it. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. That speaks volumes about what relativity really is.

:6) Johanan wrote, "Well are you going to tell me what this supposed contradiction is? I looked at the conservative words essay and I found "non-local" there. In the definition I found a reference to Jesus healing the sick kid from far away. If you mean to tell me that this violated relativity then you are wrong. First of all, such an action could have occurred at the speed of light and would have allowed for the kid to get better before his father returned home. Secondly Jesus being omnipotent has access to Hilbert space and therefore could operate outside of space-time."

::The healing occurred instantaneously and, yes, that contradicts the assumption in relativity about no information traveling faster than the speed of light. There are no exceptions allowed by relativity. It's a real contradiction. It's a not a "sign" as described by the Bible if it is impossible.

:7)Johanan wrote, "You clearly do not know my physics dept. then. Of all the science depts. this one has the highest number of Christians and conservatives than any of the others. In fact many of my friends (the same ones who study relativity) would read the Bible in the physics lounge. (and this was not isolated to the undergrads)

::Maybe you have 95-year-old pack-a-day cigarette smokers there too, who have never been sick a day in their lives. Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types. Keep in mind that many of the promoters of the phony man-made global warming are physics professors.

:8)Johanan wrote, "That's not what I was asking. I was asking how one theory -relativity(independent of who believes it) is comparable to another -AGW (independent of those who believe it)"

::The correlation is unmistakable. Perhaps both attract people who like to misuse science for liberal goals.

:9)Johanan wrote, "Prayer in schools is very good for the salutory effect it has on society. Read Irving Kristol."

::Do you support classroom prayer then? A clear "yes" would suffice.

:10)Johanan wrote, "... the masses are idiots. That's not relativities [sic] fault though. It should be noted that Einstein thought that the label of "relativity" for his theory was shoddy and that he wanted a better one. Unfortunately "relativity" stuck and as a result some idiots took it the wrong way. I can not do anything about this, but it does not imply that relativity is wrong."

::So ... you're fine with promoting something that is misleading the "masses" and harming their lives, as long as you can say it is their fault, not yours.

::Johanan, I spend my time helping people. Relativity has not helped a single person in any way, ever. It's misled and hurt a lot of people. Relativity is the most unproductive theory ever embraced, and it's a complete dead-end. I'm not going to waste more of my time on it, and I encourage you to open your mind and become more productive yourself.

:Johanan wrote, "P.S. if you really think I'm a liberal, look up my group MemeShock on facebook. You will see that I am most definitely not a liberal nor a leftist. Please stop making assumptions about me."

::You don't seem to be much of a conservative either. Conservatives advance society in a productive way. Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite that wastes taxpayer money, misleads well-intentioned students and pushes the masses toward relativism. Yet you're spending your time defending and promoting it. I'm moving on to more productive topics on this site, and hope you can do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:::It's not just an issue in the States; all over the world huge amounts of government (ie taxpayers') money is being spent promoting this theory. Why would governments spend so much on something that turns people away from the Bible? I think we all know the answer to that... [[User:TrondE|TrondE]] 23:08, 27 November 2009 (EST)

::::You're asking the wrong question TrondE. The question is "Does relativity turn people away from the Bible?" If you research relativity and relativism you'll discover that relativism only latches onto to relativity for incidental reasons. Furthermore the reasons for relativism's success exist for entirely different reasons. We'd have the 60's with or without Einstein. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::'''REPLY'''::

*Andy Wrote: "I said there is a force orthogonal to the high velocity that supposedly causes an increase in relativistic mass. Mass is a scalar, not a vector. Does that force have to contend with the relativistic mass as claimed?"

:::Yes.

:::You don't measure only one component of the velocity when you are measuring the relative velocity. You combine them with the Pythagorean theorem. So there is no change in mass when you are in a reference frame orthogonal to the moving object than when you are in a reference frame paralel to it.

*Andy Wrote: Michelson-Morley suggests that an ether does not exist, but it in no way proves the many claims of relativity.

:::Actually it's the basis for the postulate that the c is the same in all reference frames. You wrongly claimed that this was an assumption, but it is based on experimental evidence.

:::If the ether does not exist than "c" does not have a preferred reference frame to be constant in. Thus instead it is constant in all reference frames.

:::To be fair there was a third model "ballistic theory" which suggested that the photons moved at speed c with respect to their emitters, but this was ruled out by observation. It led to several optical effects that were not seen in astronomical photographs, notably in observations of binary stars in which the light from the two stars could be measured in an interferometer. If it were correct, the light from the stars should cause fringe shifting due to the velocity of the stars being added to the speed of the light, but again, no such effect could be seen. The only remaining model was the Lorentzian one.

*Andy Wrote: So you're going to try to plug weaknesses in your argument with a personal put-down? Not here.

:::No, I brought it up because you make several statements in the page which are blatantly erroneous. First of all you argue that relativity is not based on evidence but assumptions, which is simply not true as we are discussing here, then you do not seem to understand why quantum non-locality does not violate relativity, and lastly you ignore the vast experimental evidence in support of it. Most notably the massive time dilation observed in muon particles. I can only guess based on this that you don't have enough background in physics.

*Andy Wrote: "Many read it in their youth. That makes the ''termination of reading the Bible'' by them all the more striking."

Well I was just reading it earlier today and last week as well.

*Andy Wrote: "Once people buy into relativity, they stop reading it. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. That speaks volumes about what relativity really is."

:::That sounds strikingly like the "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. I don't know where you got the idea that reading relativity as opposed to any other theory caused this, but the connection you are implying is absurd and baseless. Where is your statistical evidence that tells you that people who read about relativity as opposed to say plate tectonic theory or germ theory are more likely to not read their Bible's afterwards? This suggestion that there is a connection is simply quite ridiculous.

*Andy wrote: "The healing occurred instantaneously and, yes, that contradicts the assumption in relativity about no information traveling faster than the speed of light. There are no exceptions allowed by relativity. It's a real contradiction. It's a not a "sign" as described by the Bible if it is impossible."

:::It's not a contradiction of relativity if Jesus can operate outside of space-time. Relativity does not say anything about what goes on outside of space-time. You failed to address my suggestion of this possibility though.

*Andy Wrote "Maybe you have 95-year-old pack-a-day cigarette smokers there too, who have never been sick a day in their lives. Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types. Keep in mind that many of the promoters of the phony man-made global warming are physics professors."

:::Look I don't know what personal experiences you had at Harvard, but coming from my dept. these claims are down right bizarre:

::::"Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types."

:::Well I'm denying it for one. Listen, you keep spouting this off, but there is simply no basis for it. Relativists are no more liberal than quantum theorists, particle physicists, or those who study superconductors. I haven't the slightest notion where you got this idea.

*Andy Wrote: "The correlation is unmistakable. Perhaps both attract people who like to misuse science for liberal goals."

:::Andy, part of this whole discussion is WHETHER OR NOT relativity supports a liberal goal NOT IF. To say that the correlation is unmistakable because those who promote relativity are misusing science for liberal goals is begging the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy, and does not resolve anything.

*Andy Wrote: "Do you support classroom prayer then? A clear "yes" would suffice."

:::Ok YES, and FYI I was also homeschooled from 1st grade to 12th, voted for Bush in 04, write conservative editorials for my school paper nearly every week, and run the largest right-wing memetic engineering group on facebook.

*Andy Wrote: "So ... you're fine with promoting something that is misleading the "masses" and harming their lives, as long as you can say it is their fault, not yours."

:::1.)Ok look, first of all relativISM appeared for reasons entirely different than relativITY. Supporters of relativISM seized upon relativITY to lend credence to their view. However, relativism would both exist and flourish WITHOUT relativity. The relativism in today's society is not caused by relativity. Relativity is merely incidental to relativism.

:::2.) Secondly, just because something can cause people to go to a wrong conclusion does not make that thing wrong. Relativism is a wrong conclusion. Relativity in my theory is a right premise. Just because some people use a non sequiter argument to jump from one to the other does not make relativity wrong. You have to understand that relativity is true or false INDEPENDENT of whether or not it causes certain people who are ignorant of relativity to be adherents of moral relativism.

:::3.) With this in mind I will note you might consider certain scientific discoveries as what Leo Strauss would think of as "dangerous truths." There are currently several such theories that if taken the wrong way might tend one towards atheism which in turn could lead to moral relativism. As such I prefer them to be left to the scientific world and not popularized in such a way to undermine moral values, however that does not make them any less true or false. I do not personally think of relativity to be one of these, but if you do that's fine, just remember that just because something might have adverse effects to the untrained mind doesn't make it any less true or false in itself.

*Andy Wrote: "Johanan, I spend my time helping people. Relativity has not helped a single person in any way, ever. It's misled and hurt a lot of people. Relativity is the most unproductive theory ever embraced, and it's a complete dead-end."

:::That's not true. It's led (not misled) people to make great advances in astronomy, and it HAS been productive in keeping particle's alive in particle accelerators for far longer than would normally be allowed. Furthermore it is useful in keeping GPS satellites on time when they start to slip off by a few seconds every year: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html GPS recievers calculate for gravitational time dilation to keep on track. Lastly you can't tell me that this if it works will not be both very cool and very useful: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/timetravel-01a.html

*Andy Wrote: "I'm not going to waste more of my time on it, and I encourage you to open your mind and become more productive yourself."

:::Then explain muon time dilation without relativity. I'm highly skeptical that another explanation exists, but if you can find one by all means share it.

*Andy Wrote:"You don't seem to be much of a conservative either. Conservatives advance society in a productive way. Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite that wastes taxpayer money,
misleads well-intentioned students and pushes the masses toward relativism. Yet you're spending your time defending and promoting it.

:::This is circular reasoning Andy. You start with your conclusion: "Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite" and argue back that therefore I must not be a conservative because conservatives are productive. Remember we are still debating whether or not relativity is productive. You also haven't proved why it misleads well-intentioned students. You can't argue that funding LIGO is liberal because relativity is an unproductive theory and therefore LIGO will be unproductive.

:::In a few years you might be surprised at what LIGO will do. I for one would love a new way to map dark matter. It would be a very nice way to figure out if I am on the right track with my quantum gravity theory for one thing.

*Andy Wrote: "I'm moving on to more productive topics on this site, and hope you can do likewise."

:::Don't worry, I intend to put together and edit many political pages that I think you will like! ;)

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

==Request for References==
Andy, you've said several times that learning relativity causes people to stop reading the bible, and that specialists in relativity are more liberal than physics professors (who are more liberal than college professors overall). Do you have any sources for these claims? In my experience, people in physics are as conservative as other fields of science, and more so than biologists. Thanks in advance for the sources. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 13:22, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:You can see plenty of evidence on the talk pages here. In addition, I've seen at least one survey indicating that the level of atheism is higher among physicists than, say, mathematics, despite the close connection between the fields. There are also prominent, widely promoted physicists who describe themselves as atheists, such as Richard Feynman and Steven Weinberg, more so than in mathematics or other analogous fields.

:Spend some time in a physics department, as I have, and you won't doubt that belief in relativity and reading/discussing the Bible are inversely correlated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:: Could you link to the study you have referenced above, or give some information on it? Also, as you've pointed out, knowing one person who smoked into their seventies and didn't get cancer does not prove anything. Similarly, the anecdotal evidence on this talk page doesn't verify your claim. The evidence from the talk page seems to lean the other way- most of the editors seem to think that plenty of physicists who believe in relativity also read the Bible, but it is all anecdotal. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 08:12, 29 November 2009 (EST)

:: Yes, there are some physicists who are atheists, but what is the relation to relativity? Can you even show me one person who understands relativity and does not believe it? There are people who think that relativity might have to be modified to explain some anomaly, or people who propose such hypotheses such as this [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space]. But who denies the basics of relativity? I'll count people inside or outside physics departments, but not articles like this CP page that are filled with inaccuracies about what relativity is. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::The defense of relativity grows increasingly illogical. Now the promoters' test is whether there is "one person who understands relativity and does not believe it?"

:::OK, let's try that test out. The Koran is written in Arabic, and I can't name one person who understands it who does not believe it. Does that mean, per your logic, that it must therefore be true? All liberal theories rely on double standards, and you've just established one for your theory.

:::Note, by the way, that relativity is a mathematical system. It does not adapt to counterexamples any more than number theory could adapt to a revelation that 1+1 did not quite equal 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes, there are a lot of people understand the Koran and do not believe it. Eg, here is a leftist-atheist-evolutionist who read the Koran (altho probably an English translation). [http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/the-dangers-of-islam-wright-vs-hitchens/]
:::: I am not arguing that relativity is true. I am just arguing to correct the errors in this CP article. If relativity does not have counterexamples, then why does the article complain about discontinuties and logic problems? It can be mathematically proved that no such discontinuities or logic problems exist.
:::: You say that belief in relativity is correlated with various other beliefs, but you offer no support at all. I do deny those correlations. They are contrary to my experience, and contrary to common sense. Do you have some examples of right-wingers who say that relativity is entirely wrong? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:54, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::::I found nothing of value in your link, and certainly nothing claiming that anyone read the real Koran (in Arabic) and didn't believe it. You have a [[double standard]] for relativity.

:::::But if you're not arguing that relativity is true, then that point is moot. Relativity has many counterexamples, and it looks like we need an entry analogous to [[counterexamples to evolution]]. The Pioneer "anomaly", the more precise Mercury perihelion data, the discontinuity as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, the logical problem of an orthogonal force on relativistic mass, the lack of curvature in overall space as observed by measurements, the universe near the Big Bang, and I think even new data for the pulsar for which the sole Nobel Prize for relativity tends to disprove it. As if that weren't enough, the Bible contradicts relativity also. As to people who say relativity is false, there's a long list (such as Tom Bethell) but I've already demonstrated that argument to be fallacious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:23, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::::::"Relativity has many counterexamples, and it looks like we need an entry analogous to counterexamples to evolution."

::::::Cherry-picking the anomalous data points that don't fit into relativity, while ignoring the vast majority of the evidence which does confirm it is not scientific. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:: "You can see plenty of evidence on the talk pages here." I don't think that makes a good citation for an encyclopedia article. Do we have any citations to something more concrete and objective? --[[user:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

::: Lack of Bible-reading is so prevalent among relativists that I hardly think a citation is needed to demonstrate it. Not to pick on editor Raatz, but take a look at his complete lack of Bible-related edits here despite his insistence that he still reads it: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Jfraatz]. '''''Indeed, it's difficult to imagine any theory other than relativity that so sours an impressionable student on the Bible'''''. The theory of evolution, perhaps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Andy- you have made the claim again, and now you are claiming its so obvious you don't need a citation, but it only appears obvious to you. Any single example is anecdotal- as you yourself have pointed out with your "one person who smokes into old age doesn't prove cigarettes don't cause cancer" argument. You are making a claim, and I for one would appreciate knowing why you believe it.

I cannot speak for Raatz, but I myself do read the bible, and the only contributions I have made to this project are attempted edits to relativity. The reason is that I am a physicist, and felt that my contributions would best be made in this specialized area. Conservapedia appears to have many knowledgeable of the bible, but few physicists. Not making bible related edits is not evidence of not reading the bible- it could be evidence of finding the current articles satisfactory. As a physicist, I find this relativity article simply embarrassing, and hence the endeavor to improve it. I encourage you, Andy, to take your famously open mind and sit down with a good introduction to the theory, and work through some standard introductory problems. I think that actually learning what you try to criticize may help greatly. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 16:06, 29 November 2009 (EST)

:WLink, all your edits are provoking controversies and arguing. Why not do something constructive? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 16:09, 29 November 2009 (EST)

::I honestly feel as if the most constructive thing I can do is to use my expertise as a physicist to edit this article, and the other physics related articles. Unfortunately, these changes have been reverted. Perhaps you are right, it is time I use my limited time for something constructive and leave this site. How many scientists and scientifically minded people do you think you lose due to arguments on this very page? --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 18:17, 30 November 2009 (EST)
:::Lastwordism, claims of authority, and puerile threats? You've been learning from [[Liberal style]], have you not? [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 18:20, 30 November 2009 (EST)
::::I'd be very sorry if this page pushed you off the site, WLink. I sometimes get exasperated with the constant bickering on this talk page as well; however, I've found other pages I can constructively edit in the meantime. There are definitely [[Classical mechanics|many]] [[Special theory of relativity|other]] [[Speed of light|pages]] that need work from people who know something about physics; I hope you decide to stay and help. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:26, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:::::WLink, I hope that you want to do more than make liberal edits to the [[Theory of Relativity]]. EvanW has good suggestions and I hope you can stay with an open mind. But we're not going to become like liberal, atheistic Wikipedia, which is already starting to sink like the Titanic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:07, 30 November 2009 (EST)

== A Word on Relativism ==

Despite implications made here relativism did not come into being or become popular due to relativity. The roots of modern popular relativism can be traced back to Freud and in particular a group of neo-Marxist intellectuals known as the "critical theorists" who combined Marx with Freud to argue that all morality was merely a construct to be "liberated" from:

http://mildcolonialboy.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/political-correctness-is-cultural-marxism-part-iii-speech-by-william-lind/

Basically they viewed all ideologies (even correct ones) as "oppressive." Therefore any correct moral system based on an objective ideology was "wrong" in their eyes. Thus no one moral system could be thought of as correct -hence relativism.

The critical theorists came over around WW2 to escape Germany and set up in the States. Here they then were the movers and shakers behind the counterculture of the 60's, which is where moral relativism comes from today.

Again it has nothing to do with relativity. It would have gone off on it's own with or without relativity.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:That overlooks what the leading British historian Paul Johnson says (he starts his book about the 20th century with a discussion of the theory of relativity, and how it led to increased relativism), that overlooks what the liberal law professor Laurence Tribe says (he wrote a law review article linking the theory of relativity to a call for more [[abortion]] "rights"), that overlooks what now-President [[Barack Obama]] did in allegedly helping with that article, and that downplays the dictionary dates for the terms:

::relativity (1834)
::relativism (1865), but its secondary meaning about moral relativity came later, I think, and its additional meaning is this: "relativity".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:42, 28 November 2009 (EST)

Jfrattz, I see that despite my admonition on your user talk page, you continue to engage in 90/10 bickering over relativity, with the same re-hashed points that you and countless others have brought up before. Go write a new article, or find one that could benefit from more information. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:43, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::I did a little Googling and found that, while many people have linked relativity to moral relativism, Einstein himself apparently disbelieved such links: "Asked what effect his theory would have on religion, he said: 'None. Relativity is a purely scientific matter and has nothing to do with religion'" [http://www.slate.com/id/74164/]. [http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=596 Another page] says (whether rightly or wrongly; I don't know) that "He himself held to firm standards of right and wrong and saw moral relativism... as a bankrupt philosophy." I think that the point of view of the discoverer of the theory should at least be mentioned. I'd add it myself, but the page's locked. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 15:42, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Evan, please read the top of this page. It is made clear that bringing up old points isn't helpful, and you'll find this point at [[Talk:Theory_of_relativity/Archive_1#Moral_Relativism_line_needs_to_go.]] Any questions you have about this subject can be answered there. Check the archives before posting. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:48, 29 November 2009 (EST)

::::Jacob's point is well-taken. That said, I will respond to Evan. Einstein's opinion on physics is relevant, but I don't see the significance of his opinions on religion, politics, philosophy, education or the media. Einstein was not an expert in American politics, for example. This suggestion falls into the same category as opinions by [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]] on when to use the atom bomb. He wasn't an expert on war or foreign relations, so his opinion on use was irrelevant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 29 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Thanks for the reference, Jacob... <quickly read old discussion...> Okay, it seems that the consensus there was to omit the section entirely. However, it seems to have come back in as the first paragraph in "Political aspects". I can see arguments for either including or excluding it. As for whether to include Einstein's opinion - good point, Andy. I reread the current page, and on second look, it doesn't seem to be as bad as [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]] seems to think. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 15:57, 29 November 2009 (EST)

== orthogonal force ==

ASchlafly and Jfraatz seem to have been talking past each other on the subject of what happens when a force is applied orthogonally vs. longitudinally to a relativistic particle. There is no need for the acrimony here, and there is no need for arguing over the significance of mass being a scalar rather than a vector.

The right way to analyze problems involving force and acceleration is with the "4-velocity", "4-acceleration", "4-momentum", and "4-force". These are the modern concepts that people use. The 4-velocity is a vector in spacetime. It is always a unit vector; it just "tilts" when a particle moves. The 4-momentum is the 4-velocity times the mass. That's the "rest mass". The notion of "relativistic mass" is old-fashioned. The right way to think about it is that the momentum increases faster than mv, doing so ''as if'' the mass had gone up. But it's better to think of the mass as staying the same, and the formula for momentum being <math>mv\gamma</math> rather than just mv.

The 4-acceleration is the rate of change in the 4-velocity, as measured by the proper time, and the 4-force is the rate of change of 4-velocity. Conservation of momentum applies, and says that 4-forces cancel, same as in Newton's laws. So you can find the deflection of a particle, correct for relativity, by checking conservation of momentum.

This stuff is treated in modern physics textbooks, such as Halliday and Resnick.

[[User:SaraT|SaraT]] 00:19, 2 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-12-08T23:28:21Z

NgSmith: /* Reply to Andrew Schlafly */

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

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

For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 1|Archive 1]], [[Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 2|Archive 2]]



==Barack Obama==

You misrepresent Barack Obama as an author of "The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics" by claiming in footnote 44 that "Tribe and Obama argued that...." Tribe is the sole author of the paper, and only thanks Obama (among others) for "analytic and research assistance". It's also misleading to claim that Obama "helped publish" the article, which implies that he somehow exerted political influence to get it published, knew the publishers, or was active in the publishing process. Obama was active in the research process, not the publication process.
--[[User:MikeThicke|MikeThicke]] 16:13, 8 December 2009 (EST)

== Jfraatz's comments ==

:: Andrew;

::Relativity predicts absurd physical discontinuities

::I've studied relativity in depth, and those paradoxes all have very neat resolutions once you account for the change in reference frame.

::"and it contradicts logic,"

::That doesn't follow. Relativity is based on two premises and follows very logically from them.

::"the evidence,"

::On the contrary:

::Special relativity:

::1. E=mc^2: nuclear power and the atomic bomb
2. Time dilation: The airplane experiments, and the time dilation of subatomic particle decay rates in a particle accelerator.
3.Mass increase: The exponential increase in energy required to get things fractionally closer to the speed of light.

::General relativity:

::1. Prediction of a non-static universe.
2. Gravity waves -detected by their combined perturbative effect to a the rotation of a neutron star
3. Gravitational microlensing.
4. Time dilation experiments conducted with skyscrapers
5. Red-shifting near gravitational sources.

::"and the Bible."

::That is a very bizarre claim. There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts relativity and it is about like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. I'm curious. Where did you get this idea?

::"The biggest promoters of relativity today are more liberal than the Democratic Party, and that's saying a lot."

::""First of all that's an ad hominem. Secondly it's not true. The physics department at my SECULAR university has a higher predominance of conservative and Christian people than any of the other sciences and much more so than the Marxist laden humanities departments.

::The professor who taught my relativity class -who happens to be the department expert on general relativity and quantum gravity- even invited us all to a talk after class once regarding the possibility of intelligent design of the physical constants. As it turns out this talk about intelligent design of the physical constants was given by a world famous physicist who happened to specialize in general relativity.

::"Promoting relativity causes a great deal of harm in how people view the world,"

::No, you're confusing relativity with relativism. The two are radically different. My other interest is in philosophy and the people in the philosophy dept. -many of whom are left-wing- laugh at the postmodernists who try to prove relativism with relativity.

::One is a physical theory based on constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames and the equivalence of physics in all reference frames. The other is a moral and epistemological theory that says that there are no absolutes. Special and general relativity are founded on absolutes. RelativiTY does not cause any harm. RelativiSM causes a lot of trouble. The two have nothing in common though save for a similar sounding name.

::"and has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars on fruitless projects like LIGO."

::LIGO, (which my university participates in -we do the supercomputer analysis of the data) has no results yet because they still need to make the instruments another order of magnitude stronger before they can get results.

::And LIGO is not a waste of money. Once they can detect gravity waves they will have a whole new way to study astronomy. The idea is to turn it into the gravity wave equivalent of a telescope. Instead of seeing the universe in light only we can see it in gravity waves as well. The advances in science accomplished by this are well worth the money put into them. A few million dollars is nothing compared to the billions the government wastes on social programs, and is a legitimate usage of money rather than money wasted on welfare programs. It's like funding NASA, you'd agree that manned moon landings are worth while right?

::":You've heard none of this before because liberals control universities and don't allow open discussion and debate about their pet theories."

::No I've heard them before, but the arguments made are easily debunked and are rather pseudoscientific in nature. Usually the people making them don't even understand the theory properly. And I have no idea where you get the idea that they would have a political agenda that needs relativity to support it. Once again relativity and relativism are two very different things. Einstein even once said that he though that the theory of relativity was a poor choice of names.

::"Perhaps you think man-made global warming is not a liberal theory either?"

::Where do you come off comparing the two? One is a derived science open to much biased interpretation and data manipulation, the other is experimentally validated every time we turn on a particle accelerator. In fact some of the experiments they do at these labs require relativity to work. If relativity is false then they could not be doing the experiments that they are doing.

::And no Newtonian Mechanics and Atomic theory are not liberal theories either.

::I'm awfully curious as to what motivated this anti-relativity view. Your implication that relativity is "liberal" in any sense is highly bizarre. Also why single out relavity rather than QM classical mechanics or electrodynamics?

--[[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

::::I would like to note that I have used a political analog of general relativity as a means to create a model for how to warp the political fabric with corporatism so as to correct the democratic failure causing abortion. By modifying the analog of an "economic status-debt" tensor one can leverage misbehaving abortive parents into proper behavior by using corporate leverage on the democratic process. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

Johanan, relativity is disproved by the Pioneer anomaly, for starters. The absurd discontinuities include what happens in the limit as velocity approaches the speed of light. The logical flaws include the defect of relativistic mass. Relativity has produced nothing of value, and certainly not the achievements you claim above. It's wasted hundreds of millions in taxpayer money and confused the minds of many.

Pick your very best argument and be concise if you have an open mind and want to discuss this. If your mind is closed and made up, then I recommend Wikipedia for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::First of all there are no absurd results when you reach relativistic velocities. Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed -unless you want to say that empirically observed measurements of such can not be so because they are illogical.

::MY BEST ARGUMENT: As a physics major I have done the Michelson-Morley experiment in my modern physics lab and seen the results with my own eyes. You can not tell me that relativity is based on assumptions rather than observations, as I have seen the very same observations that are the basis for relativity. Unless of course you are arguing that it can't be so and therefore my eyes must be deceiving me.

::QUESTIONS: 1.)How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?
::2.) You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this. Saying this is almost like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. In what way does it contradict the Bible?
::3.)You compared relativity to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). One is prone to much more interpretation than relativity and has been found to be based on fraudulent data. The effects of relativity by contrast empirically confirmed every time the particle accelerator at Fermilab turns on, and it is far more simple to observe and confirm than AGW. So my question is where do you come off comparing the two?

::COMMENTS: 1.)As someone who believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason. Despite your implication that relativity is a "liberal" theory I am no liberal and am therefore not so open-minded that my brains fall out. If something doesn't fit into objective a priori principles and empirical observation I have a hard time taking it seriously -I don't buy post-modernism or the idea that you can determine truth outside of objective means.
::2.)Relativists in physics are not particularly liberal. My special relativity professor who happens to be the dept. specialist on relativity and quantum gravity even invited us to a talk after class one day. The topic was on the possibility of the intelligent design of the physical constants -at a secular university no less. The talk itself was to be given by a prominent physicist who also happened to specialize in relativity. You can't tell me that an extremely liberal professor would be inviting his students to talks on the possibility of intelligent design.
::3.)RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM. I also happen to have a minor in philosophy, and relativism is not based on the same premises as relativity, nor does it have anything in common with relativity. The post-modernist sorts that try to prove the latter from the former are laughed at by philosophers of both left and right-wing stripes. You needn't worry about relativity causing relativism.
::4.)Gravity waves have already been confirmed by there effects on neutron star rotation. LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves but rather as a telescope to see the universe in a "gravitational spectrum" in the same way you would normally see it with light. This is why they are spending so much money on it and it is well worth the cost -even $1-2billion. It will revolutionize astronomy once they increase the sensitivity by another order of magnitude or so -they are very close now. If you want to slash spending, the social programs spend hundreds of times that. LIGO isn't the money sucker, welfare etc. is. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

: No, the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity. It barely has anything to do with relativity. How do you think that NASA is ever able to have any successful space missions, if all its theories of gravity have been disproved? There are no discontinuities or logical flaws. Relativistic mass was already being confirmed in 1901, just a couple of years after it was predicted. Do you have any reliable sources for any of what you say? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:13, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::You say, "the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity." What do you think the "anomaly" is from, if not relativity?

::Perhaps you agree with Wikipedians, who admit that the data from the spacecraft is contrary to what is "predicted", but the Wikipedians refuse to admit that the contradicted theory is the theory of relativity![http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly] Maybe that omission fools some people, but it doesn't fool conservatives aware of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:28, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::Since when is relativity is a liberal theory? I have yet to see a good argument to this effect. [[User:jfraatz:Johanan Raatz]]

::: I was the one who told you about the Pioneer anomaly. Possible explanations are listed on the WP page. One possibility is a gravitational effect different from known theories (Newton and relativity). But what is your point? The WP page already says that. You are not addressing the errors in this article. The stuff about discontinuities, hypotheses, resistance, and quantum mechanics are all false. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:25, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::::The "point" is that Wikipedians (liberal wannabee scientists) won't state which theory is contradicted by the data. You're just guessing when you say "Newton and relativity."

::::This is like the feminists who won't use certain words, like "girl" or "gentlemanly". If confronted with a situation where no substitute works, a feminist will still find a way not to say the "forbidden" word. They'll congratulate a new mother on her baby girl by calling her a "baby woman"!

::::Try saying expressly on Wikipedia that the theory of relativity is contradicted by the Pioneer data and watch that be erased by its liberal editors. Do you think that is science, or logic?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:32, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::::: I am not guessing. Just read the WP page. It says, "The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviation ... slowing down slightly more than expected ... The anomaly has no universally accepted explanation." Possible explanations include "modification of the law of gravity." Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range. They are either both accurate or inaccurate. What more do you want? The article has links to modified gravity theories. What does this have to do with this CP relativity page? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:31, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::::: You are guessing that "Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range." I doubt they predict identical results for this Pioneer data. Does the Pioneer anomaly contradict only the theory of relativity, or Newtonian gravity also? Are the data closer to one theory than the other? If this were science, then the Wikipedia article would say. Of course, this isn't really science, and Wikipedians won't expressly admit the data conflicts with relativity. If you inserted mention of the theory of relativity into the Wikipedia page, then I bet it would be erased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 26 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::I would expect that the results at that range would be in the margin of error for both theories. General relativity only starts to become significant in extreme gravitational fields and the earth does not have an extreme gravitational field.

:::::::As for Wikipedia covering up evidence regarding relativity to suit a liberal bias, let me make a comment about that. I happen to also be active on Wikipedia, and from my experience the kind of people that edit the science pages are not the same kind of people who generally edit the political/philosophy pages. I have noticed a great deal of political bias in the people who dominate the latter pages, but not at all the former. I really don't think they did is -if they did it at all- for political reasons. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

::::::::The results are not within the standard of error. You're in denial: the results contradict the theory of relativity. And Wikipedians will never allow that truth on their pages. The Wikipedians who edit the science paiges there are just as liberal as those who edit the other pages, and it's implausible to suggest otherwise. Check out the global warming pages on Wikipedia, for example, if you doubt this. (My response to your earlier comments are below).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::: The Pioneer anomaly is not known to contradict either relativity or Newtonian gravity. Contradicting gravity is just one of several possible explanations, and no one is accepted. If it contradicts one then it contradicts the other, as the two theories say the same for Pioneer data. The gravity on Pioneer is extremely weak, and far outside the range where relativity would make any difference. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:20, 27 November 2009 (EST)

== Reply to Johanan Raatz ==

Mr. Raatz said, "Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed ...."

:Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''. Predictably you will say you never thought or heard about this logical problem before, so please then comment on ''why'' you've never thought or heard about this logical flaw. By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades.

:: Sorry to interrupt, but the answer is yes, according to relativity. If a particle is zipping by at high speed, any addition to its velocity---whether along or orthogonal to its direction of motion---is described by a Lorentz transformation multiplied into the Tv for its current velocity.

:: This is not some obscure question that I expect physicists to have never thought about. The addition rules for velocity in parallel and orthogonal directions are a very basic component of special relativity, and directly follow from the Lorentz transformation. All of this is elementary linear algebra. Indeed, relativistic momentum (and what people loosely call "relativistic mass") can be derived from those velocity addition laws by differentiating them with respect to time.

:: You seem to be implying that this is some sort of internal contradiction. But why? There is nothing contradictory about the fact that speeding up a particle is progressively harder, even if you try to do it orthogonally to its present velocity relative to you. The basic fact is that for momentum to be conserved under the Lorentz transformation, you need a factor of gamma in the momentum (which, again, is loosely interpreted as a "relativistic mass", since p=mv*gamma combined with a classial p=mv leads people to see m*gamma as the "mass" part. I find that interpretation more confusing than useful, but it has many adherents.) --[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::If the new force is orthogonal (perpendicular) to the velocity, then it should be unaffected by the relativistic mass. Indeed, some relativists have shifted to "relativistic momentum," which is a vector, to try to avoid this logical dilemma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:45, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Mr. Raatz says his "best argument" is the "Michelson-Morley experiment."

:If that's your best argument, then this case is closed. That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.

Mr. Raatz asks, "How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?"

:What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.

Mr. Raatz says, "You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this."

:You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible. Why is that? The Bible sells 100 times more copies ''annually'' than books on the New York Times bestseller list, and is undeniably the most influential book in history (Newton attributed his insights to it), yet relativists don't read it. Do you? The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.

Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable.

Mr. Raatz says he "believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason" and "I am no liberal."

:Really? So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray? I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it.

Mr. Raatz says, "RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM."

:Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism. Check out the first few pages of the respected historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, where he links the "discovery" of relativity to the popularity of moral relativism that followed. He's studied history more than you have, I think.

Mr. Raatz wrote, "LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves ...."

:LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons. You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle. How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do? That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)

== Reply to Johanan Raatz ==

Mr. Raatz said, "Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed ...."

:Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''. Predictably you will say you never thought or heard about this logical problem before, so please then comment on ''why'' you've never thought or heard about this logical flaw. By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades.

:: Sorry to interrupt, but the answer is yes, according to relativity. If a particle is zipping by at high speed, any addition to its velocity---whether along or orthogonal to its direction of motion---is described by a Lorentz transformation multiplied into the Tv for its current velocity.

:: This is not some obscure question that I expect physicists to have never thought about. The addition rules for velocity in parallel and orthogonal directions are a very basic component of special relativity, and directly follow from the Lorentz transformation. All of this is elementary linear algebra. Indeed, relativistic momentum (and what people loosely call "relativistic mass") can be derived from those velocity addition laws by differentiating them with respect to time.

:: You seem to be implying that this is some sort of internal contradiction. But why? There is nothing contradictory about the fact that speeding up a particle is progressively harder, even if you try to do it orthogonally to its present velocity relative to you. The basic fact is that for momentum to be conserved under the Lorentz transformation, you need a factor of gamma in the momentum (which, again, is loosely interpreted as a "relativistic mass", since p=mv*gamma combined with a classial p=mv leads people to see m*gamma as the "mass" part. I find that interpretation more confusing than useful, but it has many adherents.) --[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::If the new force is orthogonal (perpendicular) to the velocity, then it should be unaffected by the relativistic mass. Indeed, some relativists have shifted to "relativistic momentum," which is a vector, to try to avoid this logical dilemma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:45, 29 November 2009 (EST)

:::: ''Why?'' Why ''should'' an orthogonal force be independent of the object's existing relativistic mass?

:::: Because forces are supposed to act that way, according to our Newtonian intuition? Special relativity is not Newtonian physics. In relativity velocities do not add as vectors, and so acceleration and force do not work that way. Nor are they supposed to.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

Mr. Raatz says his "best argument" is the "Michelson-Morley experiment."

:If that's your best argument, then this case is closed. That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.

Mr. Raatz asks, "How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?"

:What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.

Mr. Raatz says, "You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this."

:You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible. Why is that? The Bible sells 100 times more copies ''annually'' than books on the New York Times bestseller list, and is undeniably the most influential book in history (Newton attributed his insights to it), yet relativists don't read it. Do you? The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.

Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable.

Mr. Raatz says he "believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason" and "I am no liberal."

:Really? So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray? I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it.

Mr. Raatz says, "RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM."

:Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism. Check out the first few pages of the respected historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, where he links the "discovery" of relativity to the popularity of moral relativism that followed. He's studied history more than you have, I think.

Mr. Raatz wrote, "LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves ...."

:LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons. You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle. How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do? That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)

==Request for References==
Andy, you've said several times that learning relativity causes people to stop reading the bible, and that specialists in relativity are more liberal than physics professors (who are more liberal than college professors overall). Do you have any sources for these claims? In my experience, people in physics are as conservative as other fields of science, and more so than biologists. Thanks in advance for the sources. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 13:22, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:You can see plenty of evidence on the talk pages here. In addition, I've seen at least one survey indicating that the level of atheism is higher among physicists than, say, mathematics, despite the close connection between the fields. There are also prominent, widely promoted physicists who describe themselves as atheists, such as Richard Feynman and Steven Weinberg, more so than in mathematics or other analogous fields.

:Spend some time in a physics department, as I have, and you won't doubt that belief in relativity and reading/discussing the Bible are inversely correlated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:: Could you link to the study you have referenced above, or give some information on it? Also, as you've pointed out, knowing one person who smoked into their seventies and didn't get cancer does not prove anything. Similarly, the anecdotal evidence on this talk page doesn't verify your claim. The evidence from the talk page seems to lean the other way- most of the editors seem to think that plenty of physicists who believe in relativity also read the Bible, but it is all anecdotal. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 08:12, 29 November 2009 (EST)

:: Yes, there are some physicists who are atheists, but what is the relation to relativity? Can you even show me one person who understands relativity and does not believe it? There are people who think that relativity might have to be modified to explain some anomaly, or people who propose such hypotheses such as this [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space]. But who denies the basics of relativity? I'll count people inside or outside physics departments, but not articles like this CP page that are filled with inaccuracies about what relativity is. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::The defense of relativity grows increasingly illogical. Now the promoters' test is whether there is "one person who understands relativity and does not believe it?"

:::OK, let's try that test out. The Koran is written in Arabic, and I can't name one person who understands it who does not believe it. Does that mean, per your logic, that it must therefore be true? All liberal theories rely on double standards, and you've just established one for your theory.

:::Note, by the way, that relativity is a mathematical system. It does not adapt to counterexamples any more than number theory could adapt to a revelation that 1+1 did not quite equal 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes, there are a lot of people understand the Koran and do not believe it. Eg, here is a leftist-atheist-evolutionist who read the Koran (altho probably an English translation). [http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/the-dangers-of-islam-wright-vs-hitchens/]
:::: I am not arguing that relativity is true. I am just arguing to correct the errors in this CP article. If relativity does not have counterexamples, then why does the article complain about discontinuties and logic problems? It can be mathematically proved that no such discontinuities or logic problems exist.
:::: You say that belief in relativity is correlated with various other beliefs, but you offer no support at all. I do deny those correlations. They are contrary to my experience, and contrary to common sense. Do you have some examples of right-wingers who say that relativity is entirely wrong? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:54, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::::I found nothing of value in your link, and certainly nothing claiming that anyone read the real Koran (in Arabic) and didn't believe it. You have a [[double standard]] for relativity.

:::::But if you're not arguing that relativity is true, then that point is moot. Relativity has many counterexamples, and it looks like we need an entry analogous to [[counterexamples to evolution]]. The Pioneer "anomaly", the more precise Mercury perihelion data, the discontinuity as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, the logical problem of an orthogonal force on relativistic mass, the lack of curvature in overall space as observed by measurements, the universe near the Big Bang, and I think even new data for the pulsar for which the sole Nobel Prize for relativity tends to disprove it. As if that weren't enough, the Bible contradicts relativity also. As to people who say relativity is false, there's a long list (such as Tom Bethell) but I've already demonstrated that argument to be fallacious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:23, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::::::"Relativity has many counterexamples, and it looks like we need an entry analogous to counterexamples to evolution."

::::::Cherry-picking the anomalous data points that don't fit into relativity, while ignoring the vast majority of the evidence which does confirm it is not scientific. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:: "You can see plenty of evidence on the talk pages here." I don't think that makes a good citation for an encyclopedia article. Do we have any citations to something more concrete and objective? --[[user:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

::: Lack of Bible-reading is so prevalent among relativists that I hardly think a citation is needed to demonstrate it. Not to pick on editor Raatz, but take a look at his complete lack of Bible-related edits here despite his insistence that he still reads it: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Jfraatz]. '''''Indeed, it's difficult to imagine any theory other than relativity that so sours an impressionable student on the Bible'''''. The theory of evolution, perhaps.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Andy- you have made the claim again, and now you are claiming its so obvious you don't need a citation, but it only appears obvious to you. Any single example is anecdotal- as you yourself have pointed out with your "one person who smokes into old age doesn't prove cigarettes don't cause cancer" argument. You are making a claim, and I for one would appreciate knowing why you believe it.

I cannot speak for Raatz, but I myself do read the bible, and the only contributions I have made to this project are attempted edits to relativity. The reason is that I am a physicist, and felt that my contributions would best be made in this specialized area. Conservapedia appears to have many knowledgeable of the bible, but few physicists. Not making bible related edits is not evidence of not reading the bible- it could be evidence of finding the current articles satisfactory. As a physicist, I find this relativity article simply embarrassing, and hence the endeavor to improve it. I encourage you, Andy, to take your famously open mind and sit down with a good introduction to the theory, and work through some standard introductory problems. I think that actually learning what you try to criticize may help greatly. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 16:06, 29 November 2009 (EST)

:WLink, all your edits are provoking controversies and arguing. Why not do something constructive? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 16:09, 29 November 2009 (EST)

::I honestly feel as if the most constructive thing I can do is to use my expertise as a physicist to edit this article, and the other physics related articles. Unfortunately, these changes have been reverted. Perhaps you are right, it is time I use my limited time for something constructive and leave this site. How many scientists and scientifically minded people do you think you lose due to arguments on this very page? --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 18:17, 30 November 2009 (EST)
:::Lastwordism, claims of authority, and puerile threats? You've been learning from [[Liberal style]], have you not? [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 18:20, 30 November 2009 (EST)
::::I'd be very sorry if this page pushed you off the site, WLink. I sometimes get exasperated with the constant bickering on this talk page as well; however, I've found other pages I can constructively edit in the meantime. There are definitely [[Classical mechanics|many]] [[Special theory of relativity|other]] [[Speed of light|pages]] that need work from people who know something about physics; I hope you decide to stay and help. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:26, 30 November 2009 (EST)

:::::WLink, I hope that you want to do more than make liberal edits to the [[Theory of Relativity]]. EvanW has good suggestions and I hope you can stay with an open mind. But we're not going to become like liberal, atheistic Wikipedia, which is already starting to sink like the Titanic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:07, 30 November 2009 (EST)

== A Word on Relativism ==

Despite implications made here relativism did not come into being or become popular due to relativity. The roots of modern popular relativism can be traced back to Freud and in particular a group of neo-Marxist intellectuals known as the "critical theorists" who combined Marx with Freud to argue that all morality was merely a construct to be "liberated" from:

http://mildcolonialboy.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/political-correctness-is-cultural-marxism-part-iii-speech-by-william-lind/

Basically they viewed all ideologies (even correct ones) as "oppressive." Therefore any correct moral system based on an objective ideology was "wrong" in their eyes. Thus no one moral system could be thought of as correct -hence relativism.

The critical theorists came over around WW2 to escape Germany and set up in the States. Here they then were the movers and shakers behind the counterculture of the 60's, which is where moral relativism comes from today.

Again it has nothing to do with relativity. It would have gone off on it's own with or without relativity.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:That overlooks what the leading British historian Paul Johnson says (he starts his book about the 20th century with a discussion of the theory of relativity, and how it led to increased relativism), that overlooks what the liberal law professor Laurence Tribe says (he wrote a law review article linking the theory of relativity to a call for more [[abortion]] "rights"), that overlooks what now-President [[Barack Obama]] did in allegedly helping with that article, and that downplays the dictionary dates for the terms:

::relativity (1834)
::relativism (1865), but its secondary meaning about moral relativity came later, I think, and its additional meaning is this: "relativity".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:42, 28 November 2009 (EST)

Jfrattz, I see that despite my admonition on your user talk page, you continue to engage in 90/10 bickering over relativity, with the same re-hashed points that you and countless others have brought up before. Go write a new article, or find one that could benefit from more information. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:43, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::I did a little Googling and found that, while many people have linked relativity to moral relativism, Einstein himself apparently disbelieved such links: "Asked what effect his theory would have on religion, he said: 'None. Relativity is a purely scientific matter and has nothing to do with religion'" [http://www.slate.com/id/74164/]. [http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=596 Another page] says (whether rightly or wrongly; I don't know) that "He himself held to firm standards of right and wrong and saw moral relativism... as a bankrupt philosophy." I think that the point of view of the discoverer of the theory should at least be mentioned. I'd add it myself, but the page's locked. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 15:42, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Evan, please read the top of this page. It is made clear that bringing up old points isn't helpful, and you'll find this point at [[Talk:Theory_of_relativity/Archive_1#Moral_Relativism_line_needs_to_go.]] Any questions you have about this subject can be answered there. Check the archives before posting. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:48, 29 November 2009 (EST)

::::Jacob's point is well-taken. That said, I will respond to Evan. Einstein's opinion on physics is relevant, but I don't see the significance of his opinions on religion, politics, philosophy, education or the media. Einstein was not an expert in American politics, for example. This suggestion falls into the same category as opinions by [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]] on when to use the atom bomb. He wasn't an expert on war or foreign relations, so his opinion on use was irrelevant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 29 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Thanks for the reference, Jacob... <quickly read old discussion...> Okay, it seems that the consensus there was to omit the section entirely. However, it seems to have come back in as the first paragraph in "Political aspects". I can see arguments for either including or excluding it. As for whether to include Einstein's opinion - good point, Andy. I reread the current page, and on second look, it doesn't seem to be as bad as [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]] seems to think. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 15:57, 29 November 2009 (EST)

== orthogonal force ==

ASchlafly and Jfraatz seem to have been talking past each other on the subject of what happens when a force is applied orthogonally vs. longitudinally to a relativistic particle. There is no need for the acrimony here, and there is no need for arguing over the significance of mass being a scalar rather than a vector.

The right way to analyze problems involving force and acceleration is with the "4-velocity", "4-acceleration", "4-momentum", and "4-force". These are the modern concepts that people use. The 4-velocity is a vector in spacetime. It is always a unit vector; it just "tilts" when a particle moves. The 4-momentum is the 4-velocity times the mass. That's the "rest mass". The notion of "relativistic mass" is old-fashioned. The right way to think about it is that the momentum increases faster than mv, doing so ''as if'' the mass had gone up. But it's better to think of the mass as staying the same, and the formula for momentum being <math>mv\gamma</math> rather than just mv.

The 4-acceleration is the rate of change in the 4-velocity, as measured by the proper time, and the 4-force is the rate of change of 4-velocity. Conservation of momentum applies, and says that 4-forces cancel, same as in Newton's laws. So you can find the deflection of a particle, correct for relativity, by checking conservation of momentum.

This stuff is treated in modern physics textbooks, such as Halliday and Resnick.

[[User:SaraT|SaraT]] 00:19, 2 December 2009 (EST)

Theory of relativity

2009-12-08T22:54:23Z

NgSmith: /* Mass increase */

''See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].''

'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related mathematical theories in [[physics]]:

*'''[[Special theory of relativity|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]], and 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 theory of relativity|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.

Unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity have discontinuities whereby the limit of a physical quantity as a variable (such as mass or velocity) approaches a fixed value is not the same as the physical quantity at the fixed value. For example, the limit of momentum as mass approaches 0 and velocity approaches the speed of light is not equal to the momentum of (massless) light.<ref>Discontinuities in General Relativity are also well-recognized. See, e.g., [http://www.springerlink.com/content/u47l341u2q555455/]</ref>

More generally, and also unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity consist of complex mathematical equations relying on several hypotheses. For example, at Hofstra University general relativity is taught as part of an upperclass math course on differential geometry, based on three stated assumptions.<ref>http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/tc.html</ref> The equations for special relativity assume that it is forever impossible to attain a velocity faster than the speed of light and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent, hypotheses that can never be fully tested. Relativity rejects Newton's [[action at a distance]], which is basic to Newtonian gravity and [[quantum mechanics]]. The mathematics of relativity assume no exceptions, yet in the time period immediately following the origin of the universe the relativity equations could not possibly have been valid.

Relativity has been met with much resistance in the scientific world. To date, a Nobel Prize has never been awarded for relativity. Louis Essen, the man credited with determining the speed of light, wrote many fiery papers against it such as ''The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis''.<ref>http://ephysics.fileave.com/physics/Essen/oxford5-essen.pdf</ref> Relativity also gravely conflicts with [[quantum mechanics]], and although theories like [[string theory]] and [[quantum field theory]] have attempted to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, neither has been entirely successful or proven.

Unlike [[Newton]]ian physics, in which space and time intervals are each invariant as seen by all observers, in SR the only invariant quantity is a quadratic combination of space and time intervals (x2 - c2 t2). The (assumed) instantaneous transmission of [[Newton]]ian gravitational effects also contradicts special relativity.

In quantum mechanics, the [[uncertainty principle]] suggests that virtual particles can sometimes travel faster than the speed of light which would violate causality, but "[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> Consequently, in 1928 Paul Dirac derived the Dirac equation, one of the first quantum mechanical equations compatible with special relativity, by which Dirac predicted the existence of antimatter. Four years later, antimatter (the positron) was discovered by Carl Anderson, as successfully predicted by relativistic quantum mechanics. [[Quantum field theory]], a generalization of quantum mechanics, is fully compatible with special relativity but not with general relativity, and still lacks a vital piece: evidence of the [[graviton]].

== Special Relativity ==
Lorentz and Poincare developed Special Relativity as way of understanding how Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism could be valid in different frames of reference. Einstein famously published an explanation of Poincare's theory 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).

Or, in more concise, clearer terms, these assumptions are this:

#there is no [[action at a distance]] (because that would make observations dependent on the frame of reference)
#space and time are completely symmetric throughout the universe (because otherwise frames of reference would not be interchangeable)

When the assumptions are stated clearly as above, the weaknesses in the theory are more apparent. There ''is'' action at a distance in [[quantum entanglement]] and apparently also in gravity, as no gravitons can be found. However, no information has yet been transmitted via quantum entanglement, so while non-locality violates the spirit of relativity it is consistent with it if relativity is limited to the transmission of information. [[Quantum field theory]], an attempt to partially reconcile [[quantum mechanics]] with relativity, is incomplete at best. As to the second assumption, it is contrary to the [[arrow of time]], which illustrates the lack of symmetry in time. Logical defects include the incoherence of relativistic mass (see discussion below) and the lack of relativistic constraints near the beginning the universe (see above).

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 Lorentz-Poincare relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The famous equation ''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. Einstein explains a thought experiment 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.

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).

==Lack of evidence for Relativity==
The Theory of relativity assumes that time is symmetric just as space is. But the biggest early promoter of relativity, Arthur Eddington, coined the term "[[arrow of time]]" admitting how time is ''not'' symmetric but is directional. The passage of time is tied to an increase in disorder, or [[entropy]]. The Theory of relativity cannot explain this, and implicitly denies it, specifically allowing for theoretical time travel (e.g., [[wormholes]]) and different rates of passage of time based on velocity and acceleration.

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.

Currently, GPS satellites are synchronized to Coordinated Universal Time by radio signals from the ground; therefore, they cannot currently be used to test general relativity.<ref>[http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html "General Relativity in the Global Positioning System."] Neil Ashby, U. of Colorado</ref>

[[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 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 ("atomic clocks") around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and claimed to observe relativistic time dilation; 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> However, the inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, declared that the experiment was inaccurate.<ref>Louis Essen, Electron. Wireless World 94 (1988) 238.</ref> Dr A. G. Kelly examined the raw data from the experiment and declared it inconclusive.<ref>A. G. Kelly,Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on Airborne Clocks, Monograph No.3 Feb.1996, The Institution of Engineers of Ireland, ISBN 1-898012-22-9</ref> The Nobel Committee chose not to honor this experiment for the significance that was claimed.

Despite [[censorship]] of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of [[liberal]] universities.<ref>http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=8&idContribution=922</ref>

==Predicted 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#Humphreys.27_model}}

Creation scientists such as physicists Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] and Dr. [[John Hartnett]] have used relativistic time dilation to explain how the earth can be 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.

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.

The abandonment by physicists of the concept of relativistic mass, however, has the consequence of undermining the traditional claim under relativity that

:<math>m - m_0 = \frac{E}{c^2}</math>

also popularly known as

:<math>E = m c^2</math>

Now a concept of the 4-momentum <math>p</math> of a particle is taught, such that 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. 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>).

== Variable Speed of Light ==

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 repeatedly passed over for a Nobel Prize, and in at least one case Dicke was insulted by the award being granted to others for contributions more properly credited to Dicke.

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>

{{Relativity}}

== 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.

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-11-29T16:56:05Z

NgSmith: /* Reply to Johanan Raatz */

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

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

For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 1|Archive 1]], [[Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 2|Archive 2]]



== Jfraatz's comments ==

:: Andrew;

::Relativity predicts absurd physical discontinuities

::I've studied relativity in depth, and those paradoxes all have very neat resolutions once you account for the change in reference frame.

::"and it contradicts logic,"

::That doesn't follow. Relativity is based on two premises and follows very logically from them.

::"the evidence,"

::On the contrary:

::Special relativity:

::1. E=mc^2: nuclear power and the atomic bomb
2. Time dilation: The airplane experiments, and the time dilation of subatomic particle decay rates in a particle accelerator.
3.Mass increase: The exponential increase in energy required to get things fractionally closer to the speed of light.

::General relativity:

::1. Prediction of a non-static universe.
2. Gravity waves -detected by their combined perturbative effect to a the rotation of a neutron star
3. Gravitational microlensing.
4. Time dilation experiments conducted with skyscrapers
5. Red-shifting near gravitational sources.

::"and the Bible."

::That is a very bizarre claim. There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts relativity and it is about like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. I'm curious. Where did you get this idea?

::"The biggest promoters of relativity today are more liberal than the Democratic Party, and that's saying a lot."

::""First of all that's an ad hominem. Secondly it's not true. The physics department at my SECULAR university has a higher predominance of conservative and Christian people than any of the other sciences and much more so than the Marxist laden humanities departments.

::The professor who taught my relativity class -who happens to be the department expert on general relativity and quantum gravity- even invited us all to a talk after class once regarding the possibility of intelligent design of the physical constants. As it turns out this talk about intelligent design of the physical constants was given by a world famous physicist who happened to specialize in general relativity.

::"Promoting relativity causes a great deal of harm in how people view the world,"

::No, you're confusing relativity with relativism. The two are radically different. My other interest is in philosophy and the people in the philosophy dept. -many of whom are left-wing- laugh at the postmodernists who try to prove relativism with relativity.

::One is a physical theory based on constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames and the equivalence of physics in all reference frames. The other is a moral and epistemological theory that says that there are no absolutes. Special and general relativity are founded on absolutes. RelativiTY does not cause any harm. RelativiSM causes a lot of trouble. The two have nothing in common though save for a similar sounding name.

::"and has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars on fruitless projects like LIGO."

::LIGO, (which my university participates in -we do the supercomputer analysis of the data) has no results yet because they still need to make the instruments another order of magnitude stronger before they can get results.

::And LIGO is not a waste of money. Once they can detect gravity waves they will have a whole new way to study astronomy. The idea is to turn it into the gravity wave equivalent of a telescope. Instead of seeing the universe in light only we can see it in gravity waves as well. The advances in science accomplished by this are well worth the money put into them. A few million dollars is nothing compared to the billions the government wastes on social programs, and is a legitimate usage of money rather than money wasted on welfare programs. It's like funding NASA, you'd agree that manned moon landings are worth while right?

::":You've heard none of this before because liberals control universities and don't allow open discussion and debate about their pet theories."

::No I've heard them before, but the arguments made are easily debunked and are rather pseudoscientific in nature. Usually the people making them don't even understand the theory properly. And I have no idea where you get the idea that they would have a political agenda that needs relativity to support it. Once again relativity and relativism are two very different things. Einstein even once said that he though that the theory of relativity was a poor choice of names.

::"Perhaps you think man-made global warming is not a liberal theory either?"

::Where do you come off comparing the two? One is a derived science open to much biased interpretation and data manipulation, the other is experimentally validated every time we turn on a particle accelerator. In fact some of the experiments they do at these labs require relativity to work. If relativity is false then they could not be doing the experiments that they are doing.

::And no Newtonian Mechanics and Atomic theory are not liberal theories either.

::I'm awfully curious as to what motivated this anti-relativity view. Your implication that relativity is "liberal" in any sense is highly bizarre. Also why single out relavity rather than QM classical mechanics or electrodynamics?

--[[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

::::I would like to note that I have used a political analog of general relativity as a means to create a model for how to warp the political fabric with corporatism so as to correct the democratic failure causing abortion. By modifying the analog of an "economic status-debt" tensor one can leverage misbehaving abortive parents into proper behavior by using corporate leverage on the democratic process. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

Johanan, relativity is disproved by the Pioneer anomaly, for starters. The absurd discontinuities include what happens in the limit as velocity approaches the speed of light. The logical flaws include the defect of relativistic mass. Relativity has produced nothing of value, and certainly not the achievements you claim above. It's wasted hundreds of millions in taxpayer money and confused the minds of many.

Pick your very best argument and be concise if you have an open mind and want to discuss this. If your mind is closed and made up, then I recommend Wikipedia for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::First of all there are no absurd results when you reach relativistic velocities. Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed -unless you want to say that empirically observed measurements of such can not be so because they are illogical.

::MY BEST ARGUMENT: As a physics major I have done the Michelson-Morley experiment in my modern physics lab and seen the results with my own eyes. You can not tell me that relativity is based on assumptions rather than observations, as I have seen the very same observations that are the basis for relativity. Unless of course you are arguing that it can't be so and therefore my eyes must be deceiving me.

::QUESTIONS: 1.)How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?
::2.) You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this. Saying this is almost like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. In what way does it contradict the Bible?
::3.)You compared relativity to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). One is prone to much more interpretation than relativity and has been found to be based on fraudulent data. The effects of relativity by contrast empirically confirmed every time the particle accelerator at Fermilab turns on, and it is far more simple to observe and confirm than AGW. So my question is where do you come off comparing the two?

::COMMENTS: 1.)As someone who believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason. Despite your implication that relativity is a "liberal" theory I am no liberal and am therefore not so open-minded that my brains fall out. If something doesn't fit into objective a priori principles and empirical observation I have a hard time taking it seriously -I don't buy post-modernism or the idea that you can determine truth outside of objective means.
::2.)Relativists in physics are not particularly liberal. My special relativity professor who happens to be the dept. specialist on relativity and quantum gravity even invited us to a talk after class one day. The topic was on the possibility of the intelligent design of the physical constants -at a secular university no less. The talk itself was to be given by a prominent physicist who also happened to specialize in relativity. You can't tell me that an extremely liberal professor would be inviting his students to talks on the possibility of intelligent design.
::3.)RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM. I also happen to have a minor in philosophy, and relativism is not based on the same premises as relativity, nor does it have anything in common with relativity. The post-modernist sorts that try to prove the latter from the former are laughed at by philosophers of both left and right-wing stripes. You needn't worry about relativity causing relativism.
::4.)Gravity waves have already been confirmed by there effects on neutron star rotation. LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves but rather as a telescope to see the universe in a "gravitational spectrum" in the same way you would normally see it with light. This is why they are spending so much money on it and it is well worth the cost -even $1-2billion. It will revolutionize astronomy once they increase the sensitivity by another order of magnitude or so -they are very close now. If you want to slash spending, the social programs spend hundreds of times that. LIGO isn't the money sucker, welfare etc. is. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

: No, the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity. It barely has anything to do with relativity. How do you think that NASA is ever able to have any successful space missions, if all its theories of gravity have been disproved? There are no discontinuities or logical flaws. Relativistic mass was already being confirmed in 1901, just a couple of years after it was predicted. Do you have any reliable sources for any of what you say? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:13, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::You say, "the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity." What do you think the "anomaly" is from, if not relativity?

::Perhaps you agree with Wikipedians, who admit that the data from the spacecraft is contrary to what is "predicted", but the Wikipedians refuse to admit that the contradicted theory is the theory of relativity![http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly] Maybe that omission fools some people, but it doesn't fool conservatives aware of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:28, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::Since when is relativity is a liberal theory? I have yet to see a good argument to this effect. [[User:jfraatz:Johanan Raatz]]

::: I was the one who told you about the Pioneer anomaly. Possible explanations are listed on the WP page. One possibility is a gravitational effect different from known theories (Newton and relativity). But what is your point? The WP page already says that. You are not addressing the errors in this article. The stuff about discontinuities, hypotheses, resistance, and quantum mechanics are all false. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:25, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::::The "point" is that Wikipedians (liberal wannabee scientists) won't state which theory is contradicted by the data. You're just guessing when you say "Newton and relativity."

::::This is like the feminists who won't use certain words, like "girl" or "gentlemanly". If confronted with a situation where no substitute works, a feminist will still find a way not to say the "forbidden" word. They'll congratulate a new mother on her baby girl by calling her a "baby woman"!

::::Try saying expressly on Wikipedia that the theory of relativity is contradicted by the Pioneer data and watch that be erased by its liberal editors. Do you think that is science, or logic?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:32, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::::: I am not guessing. Just read the WP page. It says, "The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviation ... slowing down slightly more than expected ... The anomaly has no universally accepted explanation." Possible explanations include "modification of the law of gravity." Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range. They are either both accurate or inaccurate. What more do you want? The article has links to modified gravity theories. What does this have to do with this CP relativity page? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:31, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::::: You are guessing that "Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range." I doubt they predict identical results for this Pioneer data. Does the Pioneer anomaly contradict only the theory of relativity, or Newtonian gravity also? Are the data closer to one theory than the other? If this were science, then the Wikipedia article would say. Of course, this isn't really science, and Wikipedians won't expressly admit the data conflicts with relativity. If you inserted mention of the theory of relativity into the Wikipedia page, then I bet it would be erased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 26 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::I would expect that the results at that range would be in the margin of error for both theories. General relativity only starts to become significant in extreme gravitational fields and the earth does not have an extreme gravitational field.

:::::::As for Wikipedia covering up evidence regarding relativity to suit a liberal bias, let me make a comment about that. I happen to also be active on Wikipedia, and from my experience the kind of people that edit the science pages are not the same kind of people who generally edit the political/philosophy pages. I have noticed a great deal of political bias in the people who dominate the latter pages, but not at all the former. I really don't think they did is -if they did it at all- for political reasons. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

::::::::The results are not within the standard of error. You're in denial: the results contradict the theory of relativity. And Wikipedians will never allow that truth on their pages. The Wikipedians who edit the science paiges there are just as liberal as those who edit the other pages, and it's implausible to suggest otherwise. Check out the global warming pages on Wikipedia, for example, if you doubt this. (My response to your earlier comments are below).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::: The Pioneer anomaly is not known to contradict either relativity or Newtonian gravity. Contradicting gravity is just one of several possible explanations, and no one is accepted. If it contradicts one then it contradicts the other, as the two theories say the same for Pioneer data. The gravity on Pioneer is extremely weak, and far outside the range where relativity would make any difference. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:20, 27 November 2009 (EST)

== Reply to Johanan Raatz ==

Mr. Raatz said, "Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed ...."

:Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''. Predictably you will say you never thought or heard about this logical problem before, so please then comment on ''why'' you've never thought or heard about this logical flaw. By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades.

:: Sorry to interrupt, but the answer is yes, according to relativity. If a particle is zipping by at high speed, any addition to its velocity---whether along or orthogonal to its direction of motion---is described by a Lorentz transformation multiplied into the Tv for its current velocity.

:: This is not some obscure question that I expect physicists to have never thought about. The addition rules for velocity in parallel and orthogonal directions are a very basic component of special relativity, and directly follow from the Lorentz transformation. All of this is elementary linear algebra. Indeed, relativistic momentum (and what people loosely call "relativistic mass") can be derived from those velocity addition laws by differentiating them with respect to time.

:: You seem to be implying that this is some sort of internal contradiction. But why? There is nothing contradictory about the fact that speeding up a particle is progressively harder, even if you try to do it orthogonally to its present velocity relative to you. The basic fact is that for momentum to be conserved under the Lorentz transformation, you need a factor of gamma in the momentum (which, again, is loosely interpreted as a "relativistic mass", since p=mv*gamma combined with a classial p=mv leads people to see m*gamma as the "mass" part. I find that interpretation more confusing than useful, but it has many adherents.) --[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

Mr. Raatz says his "best argument" is the "Michelson-Morley experiment."

:If that's your best argument, then this case is closed. That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.

Mr. Raatz asks, "How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?"

:What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.

Mr. Raatz says, "You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this."

:You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible. Why is that? The Bible sells 100 times more copies ''annually'' than books on the New York Times bestseller list, and is undeniably the most influential book in history (Newton attributed his insights to it), yet relativists don't read it. Do you? The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.

Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable.

Mr. Raatz says he "believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason" and "I am no liberal."

:Really? So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray? I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it.

Mr. Raatz says, "RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM."

:Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism. Check out the first few pages of the respected historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, where he links the "discovery" of relativity to the popularity of moral relativism that followed. He's studied history more than you have, I think.

Mr. Raatz wrote, "LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves ...."

:LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons. You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle. How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do? That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)

== Reply to Andrew Schlafly ==

*1.) :Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''.

The same relativistic mass is not observed in the reference frame orthogonal to the motion. However the total velocity between two objects can be calculated using the Pythagorean theorem in all 3 directions. This is the velocity which is used to calculate relativistic mass and other Lorentz transformations.

*2.) "By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades."

Yes because relativistic mass has been OBSERVED for decades.

*3.) If that's your best argument, then this case is closed. That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.

If the light had been traveling at different velocities as the Earth orbited the sun why then did I not see different interference patterns? In the experiment I indirectly observed the speed of light to be the same regardless of reference frame.

Question you have a background in law and engineering. Do you have a background in physics?

*4.)What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.

Hmm, ok so there is another theory out there that explains why time slows down with respect to another reference frame, that is not relativity? I would very much like to hear about this theory.

*5.)Do you?

Yes I've read the Bible. And I find it insulting that you would assume otherwise.

*6.) You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible. Why is that?

Well are you going to tell me what this supposed contradiction is? I looked at the conservative words essay and I found "non-local" there. In the definition I found a reference to Jesus healing the sick kid from far away. If you mean to tell me that this violated relativity then you are wrong. First of all, such an action could have occurred at the speed of light and would have allowed for the kid to get better before his father returned home. Secondly Jesus being omnipotent has access to Hilbert space and therefore could operate outside of space-time.

*7.)The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.

You clearly do not know my physics dept. then. Of all the science depts. this one has the highest number of Christians and conservatives than any of the others. In fact many of my friends (the same ones who study relativity) would read the Bible in the physics lounge. (and this was not isolated to the undergrads)

*8.)Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable.

That's not what I was asking. I was asking how one theory -relativity(independent of who believes it) is comparable to another -AGW (independent of those who believe it)

*9.)Really? So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray? I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it.

Try me! You bet wrong. Prayer in schools is very good for the salutory effect it has on society. Read Irving Kristol.

*10.)Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism.

Yes that's because the masses are idiots. That's not relativities fault though. It should be noted that Einstein thought that the label of "relativity" for his theory was shoddy and that he wanted a better one. Unfortunately "relativity" stuck and as a result some idiots took it the wrong way. I can not do anything about this, but it does not imply that relativity is wrong.

*11.):LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons.

No gravity waves. Gravitons are far smaller and according to my personal model of quantum gravity do not exist as such. (well technically they "exist" in a sense, but that would be a bad way of thinking about how gravity is quantized)Gravitons are a shoddy way to describe the real phenomenon. Gravity waves are not the same as gravitons though.

*12.)"You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle.
In today's world that level of money is not a boondoggle. Social spending is a boondoggle, cap&trade is a boondoggle, and healthcare is a boondoggle, spending a little money on sciences is not a boondoggle. Look in comparison to other programs this is a pittance. It's like the liberals who complain that NASA is taking up too much money when it is only spending less than 10 bill a year compared to the 100's of billions eaten up by their social programs.

Besides I am a neoconservative and do not have exactly the same philosophy on government programs that other conservatives might. I mostly agree on opposing socialism in government programs, but that isn't the same thing as basic projects for the public good or for the advancement of science.

*13.)"How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do?"

Fair enough. I believe LIGO accepts donations as well.

*14.)That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.

Most people would like to revolutionize astronomy with the gravitational equivalent of the telescope wouldn't you agree?

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

P.S. if you really think I'm a liberal, look up my group MemeShock on facebook. You will see that I am most definitely not a liberal nor a leftist. Please stop making assumptions about me.

:'''REPLY''':

:1)Johanan wrote, "The same relativistic mass is not observed in the reference frame orthogonal to the motion."

::No one changed the reference frame. I said there is a force orthogonal to the high velocity that supposedly causes an increase in relativistic mass. Mass is a scalar, not a vector. Does that force have to contend with the relativistic mass as claimed? You even say that this has been observed, so the answer should be easy for you.

:3) Johanan wrote, "If the light had been traveling at different velocities as the Earth orbited the sun why then did I not see different interference patterns?"

::Michelson-Morley suggests that an ether does not exist, but it in no way proves the many claims of relativity.

: Johanan wrote, "Question you have a background in law and engineering. Do you have a background in physics?"

:: So you're going to try to plug weaknesses in your argument with a personal put-down? Not here.

: Johanan wrote, "Yes I've read the Bible."

:: Many read it in their youth. That makes the ''termination of reading the Bible'' by them all the more striking. I asked if you read the Bible (now). Once people buy into relativity, they stop reading it. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. That speaks volumes about what relativity really is.

:6) Johanan wrote, "Well are you going to tell me what this supposed contradiction is? I looked at the conservative words essay and I found "non-local" there. In the definition I found a reference to Jesus healing the sick kid from far away. If you mean to tell me that this violated relativity then you are wrong. First of all, such an action could have occurred at the speed of light and would have allowed for the kid to get better before his father returned home. Secondly Jesus being omnipotent has access to Hilbert space and therefore could operate outside of space-time."

::The healing occurred instantaneously and, yes, that contradicts the assumption in relativity about no information traveling faster than the speed of light. There are no exceptions allowed by relativity. It's a real contradiction. It's a not a "sign" as described by the Bible if it is impossible.

:7)Johanan wrote, "You clearly do not know my physics dept. then. Of all the science depts. this one has the highest number of Christians and conservatives than any of the others. In fact many of my friends (the same ones who study relativity) would read the Bible in the physics lounge. (and this was not isolated to the undergrads)

::Maybe you have 95-year-old pack-a-day cigarette smokers there too, who have never been sick a day in their lives. Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types. Keep in mind that many of the promoters of the phony man-made global warming are physics professors.

:8)Johanan wrote, "That's not what I was asking. I was asking how one theory -relativity(independent of who believes it) is comparable to another -AGW (independent of those who believe it)"

::The correlation is unmistakable. Perhaps both attract people who like to misuse science for liberal goals.

:9)Johanan wrote, "Prayer in schools is very good for the salutory effect it has on society. Read Irving Kristol."

::Do you support classroom prayer then? A clear "yes" would suffice.

:10)Johanan wrote, "... the masses are idiots. That's not relativities [sic] fault though. It should be noted that Einstein thought that the label of "relativity" for his theory was shoddy and that he wanted a better one. Unfortunately "relativity" stuck and as a result some idiots took it the wrong way. I can not do anything about this, but it does not imply that relativity is wrong."

::So ... you're fine with promoting something that is misleading the "masses" and harming their lives, as long as you can say it is their fault, not yours.

::Johanan, I spend my time helping people. Relativity has not helped a single person in any way, ever. It's misled and hurt a lot of people. Relativity is the most unproductive theory ever embraced, and it's a complete dead-end. I'm not going to waste more of my time on it, and I encourage you to open your mind and become more productive yourself.

:Johanan wrote, "P.S. if you really think I'm a liberal, look up my group MemeShock on facebook. You will see that I am most definitely not a liberal nor a leftist. Please stop making assumptions about me."

::You don't seem to be much of a conservative either. Conservatives advance society in a productive way. Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite that wastes taxpayer money, misleads well-intentioned students and pushes the masses toward relativism. Yet you're spending your time defending and promoting it. I'm moving on to more productive topics on this site, and hope you can do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:::It's not just an issue in the States; all over the world huge amounts of government (ie taxpayers') money is being spent promoting this theory. Why would governments spend so much on something that turns people away from the Bible? I think we all know the answer to that... [[User:TrondE|TrondE]] 23:08, 27 November 2009 (EST)

::::You're asking the wrong question TrondE. The question is "Does relativity turn people away from the Bible?" If you research relativity and relativism you'll discover that relativism only latches onto to relativity for incidental reasons. Furthermore the reasons for relativism's success exist for entirely different reasons. We'd have the 60's with or without Einstein. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::'''REPLY'''::

*Andy Wrote: "I said there is a force orthogonal to the high velocity that supposedly causes an increase in relativistic mass. Mass is a scalar, not a vector. Does that force have to contend with the relativistic mass as claimed?"

:::Yes.

:::You don't measure only one component of the velocity when you are measuring the relative velocity. You combine them with the Pythagorean theorem. So there is no change in mass when you are in a reference frame orthogonal to the moving object than when you are in a reference frame paralel to it.

*Andy Wrote: Michelson-Morley suggests that an ether does not exist, but it in no way proves the many claims of relativity.

:::Actually it's the basis for the postulate that the c is the same in all reference frames. You wrongly claimed that this was an assumption, but it is based on experimental evidence.

:::If the ether does not exist than "c" does not have a preferred reference frame to be constant in. Thus instead it is constant in all reference frames.

:::To be fair there was a third model "ballistic theory" which suggested that the photons moved at speed c with respect to their emitters, but this was ruled out by observation. It led to several optical effects that were not seen in astronomical photographs, notably in observations of binary stars in which the light from the two stars could be measured in an interferometer. If it were correct, the light from the stars should cause fringe shifting due to the velocity of the stars being added to the speed of the light, but again, no such effect could be seen. The only remaining model was the Lorentzian one.

*Andy Wrote: So you're going to try to plug weaknesses in your argument with a personal put-down? Not here.

:::No, I brought it up because you make several statements in the page which are blatantly erroneous. First of all you argue that relativity is not based on evidence but assumptions, which is simply not true as we are discussing here, then you do not seem to understand why quantum non-locality does not violate relativity, and lastly you ignore the vast experimental evidence in support of it. Most notably the massive time dilation observed in muon particles. I can only guess based on this that you don't have enough background in physics.

*Andy Wrote: "Many read it in their youth. That makes the ''termination of reading the Bible'' by them all the more striking."

Well I was just reading it earlier today and last week as well.

*Andy Wrote: "Once people buy into relativity, they stop reading it. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. That speaks volumes about what relativity really is."

:::That sounds strikingly like the "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. I don't know where you got the idea that reading relativity as opposed to any other theory caused this, but the connection you are implying is absurd and baseless. Where is your statistical evidence that tells you that people who read about relativity as opposed to say plate tectonic theory or germ theory are more likely to not read their Bible's afterwards? This suggestion that there is a connection is simply quite ridiculous.

*Andy wrote: "The healing occurred instantaneously and, yes, that contradicts the assumption in relativity about no information traveling faster than the speed of light. There are no exceptions allowed by relativity. It's a real contradiction. It's a not a "sign" as described by the Bible if it is impossible."

:::It's not a contradiction of relativity if Jesus can operate outside of space-time. Relativity does not say anything about what goes on outside of space-time. You failed to address my suggestion of this possibility though.

*Andy Wrote "Maybe you have 95-year-old pack-a-day cigarette smokers there too, who have never been sick a day in their lives. Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types. Keep in mind that many of the promoters of the phony man-made global warming are physics professors."

:::Look I don't know what personal experiences you had at Harvard, but coming from my dept. these claims are down right bizarre:

::::"Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types."

:::Well I'm denying it for one. Listen, you keep spouting this off, but there is simply no basis for it. Relativists are no more liberal than quantum theorists, particle physicists, or those who study superconductors. I haven't the slightest notion where you got this idea.

*Andy Wrote: "The correlation is unmistakable. Perhaps both attract people who like to misuse science for liberal goals."

:::Andy, part of this whole discussion is WHETHER OR NOT relativity supports a liberal goal NOT IF. To say that the correlation is unmistakable because those who promote relativity are misusing science for liberal goals is begging the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy, and does not resolve anything.

*Andy Wrote: "Do you support classroom prayer then? A clear "yes" would suffice."

:::Ok YES, and FYI I was also homeschooled from 1st grade to 12th, voted for Bush in 04, write conservative editorials for my school paper nearly every week, and run the largest right-wing memetic engineering group on facebook.

*Andy Wrote: "So ... you're fine with promoting something that is misleading the "masses" and harming their lives, as long as you can say it is their fault, not yours."

:::1.)Ok look, first of all relativISM appeared for reasons entirely different than relativITY. Supporters of relativISM seized upon relativITY to lend credence to their view. However, relativism would both exist and flourish WITHOUT relativity. The relativism in today's society is not caused by relativity. Relativity is merely incidental to relativism.

:::2.) Secondly, just because something can cause people to go to a wrong conclusion does not make that thing wrong. Relativism is a wrong conclusion. Relativity in my theory is a right premise. Just because some people use a non sequiter argument to jump from one to the other does not make relativity wrong. You have to understand that relativity is true or false INDEPENDENT of whether or not it causes certain people who are ignorant of relativity to be adherents of moral relativism.

:::3.) With this in mind I will note you might consider certain scientific discoveries as what Leo Strauss would think of as "dangerous truths." There are currently several such theories that if taken the wrong way might tend one towards atheism which in turn could lead to moral relativism. As such I prefer them to be left to the scientific world and not popularized in such a way to undermine moral values, however that does not make them any less true or false. I do not personally think of relativity to be one of these, but if you do that's fine, just remember that just because something might have adverse effects to the untrained mind doesn't make it any less true or false in itself.

*Andy Wrote: "Johanan, I spend my time helping people. Relativity has not helped a single person in any way, ever. It's misled and hurt a lot of people. Relativity is the most unproductive theory ever embraced, and it's a complete dead-end."

:::That's not true. It's led (not misled) people to make great advances in astronomy, and it HAS been productive in keeping particle's alive in particle accelerators for far longer than would normally be allowed. Furthermore it is useful in keeping GPS satellites on time when they start to slip off by a few seconds every year: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html GPS recievers calculate for gravitational time dilation to keep on track. Lastly you can't tell me that this if it works will not be both very cool and very useful: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/timetravel-01a.html

*Andy Wrote: "I'm not going to waste more of my time on it, and I encourage you to open your mind and become more productive yourself."

:::Then explain muon time dilation without relativity. I'm highly skeptical that another explanation exists, but if you can find one by all means share it.

*Andy Wrote:"You don't seem to be much of a conservative either. Conservatives advance society in a productive way. Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite that wastes taxpayer money,
misleads well-intentioned students and pushes the masses toward relativism. Yet you're spending your time defending and promoting it.

:::This is circular reasoning Andy. You start with your conclusion: "Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite" and argue back that therefore I must not be a conservative because conservatives are productive. Remember we are still debating whether or not relativity is productive. You also haven't proved why it misleads well-intentioned students. You can't argue that funding LIGO is liberal because relativity is an unproductive theory and therefore LIGO will be unproductive.

:::In a few years you might be surprised at what LIGO will do. I for one would love a new way to map dark matter. It would be a very nice way to figure out if I am on the right track with my quantum gravity theory for one thing.

*Andy Wrote: "I'm moving on to more productive topics on this site, and hope you can do likewise."

:::Don't worry, I intend to put together and edit many political pages that I think you will like! ;)

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

==Request for References==
Andy, you've said several times that learning relativity causes people to stop reading the bible, and that specialists in relativity are more liberal than physics professors (who are more liberal than college professors overall). Do you have any sources for these claims? In my experience, people in physics are as conservative as other fields of science, and more so than biologists. Thanks in advance for the sources. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 13:22, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:You can see plenty of evidence on the talk pages here. In addition, I've seen at least one survey indicating that the level of atheism is higher among physicists than, say, mathematics, despite the close connection between the fields. There are also prominent, widely promoted physicists who describe themselves as atheists, such as Richard Feynman and Steven Weinberg, more so than in mathematics or other analogous fields.

:Spend some time in a physics department, as I have, and you won't doubt that belief in relativity and reading/discussing the Bible are inversely correlated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:: Could you link to the study you have referenced above, or give some information on it? Also, as you've pointed out, knowing one person who smoked into their seventies and didn't get cancer does not prove anything. Similarly, the anecdotal evidence on this talk page doesn't verify your claim. The evidence from the talk page seems to lean the other way- most of the editors seem to think that plenty of physicists who believe in relativity also read the Bible, but it is all anecdotal. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 08:12, 29 November 2009 (EST)

:: Yes, there are some physicists who are atheists, but what is the relation to relativity? Can you even show me one person who understands relativity and does not believe it? There are people who think that relativity might have to be modified to explain some anomaly, or people who propose such hypotheses such as this [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space]. But who denies the basics of relativity? I'll count people inside or outside physics departments, but not articles like this CP page that are filled with inaccuracies about what relativity is. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::The defense of relativity grows increasingly illogical. Now the promoters' test is whether there is "one person who understands relativity and does not believe it?"

:::OK, let's try that test out. The Koran is written in Arabic, and I can't name one person who understands it who does not believe it. Does that mean, per your logic, that it must therefore be true? All liberal theories rely on double standards, and you've just established one for your theory.

:::Note, by the way, that relativity is a mathematical system. It does not adapt to counterexamples any more than number theory could adapt to a revelation that 1+1 did not quite equal 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes, there are a lot of people understand the Koran and do not believe it. Eg, here is a leftist-atheist-evolutionist who read the Koran (altho probably an English translation). [http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/the-dangers-of-islam-wright-vs-hitchens/]
:::: I am not arguing that relativity is true. I am just arguing to correct the errors in this CP article. If relativity does not have counterexamples, then why does the article complain about discontinuties and logic problems? It can be mathematically proved that no such discontinuities or logic problems exist.
:::: You say that belief in relativity is correlated with various other beliefs, but you offer no support at all. I do deny those correlations. They are contrary to my experience, and contrary to common sense. Do you have some examples of right-wingers who say that relativity is entirely wrong? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:54, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::::I found nothing of value in your link, and certainly nothing claiming that anyone read the real Koran (in Arabic) and didn't believe it. You have a [[double standard]] for relativity.

:::::But if you're not arguing that relativity is true, then that point is moot. Relativity has many counterexamples, and it looks like we need an entry analogous to [[counterexamples to evolution]]. The Pioneer "anomaly", the more precise Mercury perihelion data, the discontinuity as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, the logical problem of an orthogonal force on relativistic mass, the lack of curvature in overall space as observed by measurements, the universe near the Big Bang, and I think even new data for the pulsar for which the sole Nobel Prize for relativity tends to disprove it. As if that weren't enough, the Bible contradicts relativity also. As to people who say relativity is false, there's a long list (such as Tom Bethell) but I've already demonstrated that argument to be fallacious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:23, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::::::"Relativity has many counterexamples, and it looks like we need an entry analogous to counterexamples to evolution."

::::::Cherry-picking the anomalous data points that don't fit into relativity, while ignoring the vast majority of the evidence which does confirm it is not scientific. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:: "You can see plenty of evidence on the talk pages here." I don't think that makes a good citation for an encyclopedia article. Do we have any citations to something more concrete and objective? --[[user:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

== A Word on Relativism ==

Despite implications made here relativism did not come into being or become popular due to relativity. The roots of modern popular relativism can be traced back to Freud and in particular a group of neo-Marxist intellectuals known as the "critical theorists" who combined Marx with Freud to argue that all morality was merely a construct to be "liberated" from:

http://mildcolonialboy.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/political-correctness-is-cultural-marxism-part-iii-speech-by-william-lind/

Basically they viewed all ideologies (even correct ones) as "oppressive." Therefore any correct moral system based on an objective ideology was "wrong" in their eyes. Thus no one moral system could be thought of as correct -hence relativism.

The critical theorists came over around WW2 to escape Germany and set up in the States. Here they then were the movers and shakers behind the counterculture of the 60's, which is where moral relativism comes from today.

Again it has nothing to do with relativity. It would have gone off on it's own with or without relativity.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:That overlooks what the leading British historian Paul Johnson says (he starts his book about the 20th century with a discussion of the theory of relativity, and how it led to increased relativism), that overlooks what the liberal law professor Laurence Tribe says (he wrote a law review article linking the theory of relativity to a call for more [[abortion]] "rights"), that overlooks what now-President [[Barack Obama]] did in allegedly helping with that article, and that downplays the dictionary dates for the terms:

::relativity (1834)
::relativism (1865), but its secondary meaning about moral relativity came later, I think, and its additional meaning is this: "relativity".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:42, 28 November 2009 (EST)

Jfrattz, I see that despite my admonition on your user talk page, you continue to engage in 90/10 bickering over relativity, with the same re-hashed points that you and countless others have brought up before. Go write a new article, or find one that could benefit from more information. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:43, 28 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-11-29T16:35:54Z

NgSmith: /* Request for References */

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

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

For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 1|Archive 1]], [[Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 2|Archive 2]]



== Jfraatz's comments ==

:: Andrew;

::Relativity predicts absurd physical discontinuities

::I've studied relativity in depth, and those paradoxes all have very neat resolutions once you account for the change in reference frame.

::"and it contradicts logic,"

::That doesn't follow. Relativity is based on two premises and follows very logically from them.

::"the evidence,"

::On the contrary:

::Special relativity:

::1. E=mc^2: nuclear power and the atomic bomb
2. Time dilation: The airplane experiments, and the time dilation of subatomic particle decay rates in a particle accelerator.
3.Mass increase: The exponential increase in energy required to get things fractionally closer to the speed of light.

::General relativity:

::1. Prediction of a non-static universe.
2. Gravity waves -detected by their combined perturbative effect to a the rotation of a neutron star
3. Gravitational microlensing.
4. Time dilation experiments conducted with skyscrapers
5. Red-shifting near gravitational sources.

::"and the Bible."

::That is a very bizarre claim. There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts relativity and it is about like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. I'm curious. Where did you get this idea?

::"The biggest promoters of relativity today are more liberal than the Democratic Party, and that's saying a lot."

::""First of all that's an ad hominem. Secondly it's not true. The physics department at my SECULAR university has a higher predominance of conservative and Christian people than any of the other sciences and much more so than the Marxist laden humanities departments.

::The professor who taught my relativity class -who happens to be the department expert on general relativity and quantum gravity- even invited us all to a talk after class once regarding the possibility of intelligent design of the physical constants. As it turns out this talk about intelligent design of the physical constants was given by a world famous physicist who happened to specialize in general relativity.

::"Promoting relativity causes a great deal of harm in how people view the world,"

::No, you're confusing relativity with relativism. The two are radically different. My other interest is in philosophy and the people in the philosophy dept. -many of whom are left-wing- laugh at the postmodernists who try to prove relativism with relativity.

::One is a physical theory based on constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames and the equivalence of physics in all reference frames. The other is a moral and epistemological theory that says that there are no absolutes. Special and general relativity are founded on absolutes. RelativiTY does not cause any harm. RelativiSM causes a lot of trouble. The two have nothing in common though save for a similar sounding name.

::"and has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars on fruitless projects like LIGO."

::LIGO, (which my university participates in -we do the supercomputer analysis of the data) has no results yet because they still need to make the instruments another order of magnitude stronger before they can get results.

::And LIGO is not a waste of money. Once they can detect gravity waves they will have a whole new way to study astronomy. The idea is to turn it into the gravity wave equivalent of a telescope. Instead of seeing the universe in light only we can see it in gravity waves as well. The advances in science accomplished by this are well worth the money put into them. A few million dollars is nothing compared to the billions the government wastes on social programs, and is a legitimate usage of money rather than money wasted on welfare programs. It's like funding NASA, you'd agree that manned moon landings are worth while right?

::":You've heard none of this before because liberals control universities and don't allow open discussion and debate about their pet theories."

::No I've heard them before, but the arguments made are easily debunked and are rather pseudoscientific in nature. Usually the people making them don't even understand the theory properly. And I have no idea where you get the idea that they would have a political agenda that needs relativity to support it. Once again relativity and relativism are two very different things. Einstein even once said that he though that the theory of relativity was a poor choice of names.

::"Perhaps you think man-made global warming is not a liberal theory either?"

::Where do you come off comparing the two? One is a derived science open to much biased interpretation and data manipulation, the other is experimentally validated every time we turn on a particle accelerator. In fact some of the experiments they do at these labs require relativity to work. If relativity is false then they could not be doing the experiments that they are doing.

::And no Newtonian Mechanics and Atomic theory are not liberal theories either.

::I'm awfully curious as to what motivated this anti-relativity view. Your implication that relativity is "liberal" in any sense is highly bizarre. Also why single out relavity rather than QM classical mechanics or electrodynamics?

--[[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

::::I would like to note that I have used a political analog of general relativity as a means to create a model for how to warp the political fabric with corporatism so as to correct the democratic failure causing abortion. By modifying the analog of an "economic status-debt" tensor one can leverage misbehaving abortive parents into proper behavior by using corporate leverage on the democratic process. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

Johanan, relativity is disproved by the Pioneer anomaly, for starters. The absurd discontinuities include what happens in the limit as velocity approaches the speed of light. The logical flaws include the defect of relativistic mass. Relativity has produced nothing of value, and certainly not the achievements you claim above. It's wasted hundreds of millions in taxpayer money and confused the minds of many.

Pick your very best argument and be concise if you have an open mind and want to discuss this. If your mind is closed and made up, then I recommend Wikipedia for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::First of all there are no absurd results when you reach relativistic velocities. Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed -unless you want to say that empirically observed measurements of such can not be so because they are illogical.

::MY BEST ARGUMENT: As a physics major I have done the Michelson-Morley experiment in my modern physics lab and seen the results with my own eyes. You can not tell me that relativity is based on assumptions rather than observations, as I have seen the very same observations that are the basis for relativity. Unless of course you are arguing that it can't be so and therefore my eyes must be deceiving me.

::QUESTIONS: 1.)How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?
::2.) You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this. Saying this is almost like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. In what way does it contradict the Bible?
::3.)You compared relativity to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). One is prone to much more interpretation than relativity and has been found to be based on fraudulent data. The effects of relativity by contrast empirically confirmed every time the particle accelerator at Fermilab turns on, and it is far more simple to observe and confirm than AGW. So my question is where do you come off comparing the two?

::COMMENTS: 1.)As someone who believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason. Despite your implication that relativity is a "liberal" theory I am no liberal and am therefore not so open-minded that my brains fall out. If something doesn't fit into objective a priori principles and empirical observation I have a hard time taking it seriously -I don't buy post-modernism or the idea that you can determine truth outside of objective means.
::2.)Relativists in physics are not particularly liberal. My special relativity professor who happens to be the dept. specialist on relativity and quantum gravity even invited us to a talk after class one day. The topic was on the possibility of the intelligent design of the physical constants -at a secular university no less. The talk itself was to be given by a prominent physicist who also happened to specialize in relativity. You can't tell me that an extremely liberal professor would be inviting his students to talks on the possibility of intelligent design.
::3.)RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM. I also happen to have a minor in philosophy, and relativism is not based on the same premises as relativity, nor does it have anything in common with relativity. The post-modernist sorts that try to prove the latter from the former are laughed at by philosophers of both left and right-wing stripes. You needn't worry about relativity causing relativism.
::4.)Gravity waves have already been confirmed by there effects on neutron star rotation. LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves but rather as a telescope to see the universe in a "gravitational spectrum" in the same way you would normally see it with light. This is why they are spending so much money on it and it is well worth the cost -even $1-2billion. It will revolutionize astronomy once they increase the sensitivity by another order of magnitude or so -they are very close now. If you want to slash spending, the social programs spend hundreds of times that. LIGO isn't the money sucker, welfare etc. is. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

: No, the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity. It barely has anything to do with relativity. How do you think that NASA is ever able to have any successful space missions, if all its theories of gravity have been disproved? There are no discontinuities or logical flaws. Relativistic mass was already being confirmed in 1901, just a couple of years after it was predicted. Do you have any reliable sources for any of what you say? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:13, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::You say, "the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity." What do you think the "anomaly" is from, if not relativity?

::Perhaps you agree with Wikipedians, who admit that the data from the spacecraft is contrary to what is "predicted", but the Wikipedians refuse to admit that the contradicted theory is the theory of relativity![http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly] Maybe that omission fools some people, but it doesn't fool conservatives aware of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:28, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::Since when is relativity is a liberal theory? I have yet to see a good argument to this effect. [[User:jfraatz:Johanan Raatz]]

::: I was the one who told you about the Pioneer anomaly. Possible explanations are listed on the WP page. One possibility is a gravitational effect different from known theories (Newton and relativity). But what is your point? The WP page already says that. You are not addressing the errors in this article. The stuff about discontinuities, hypotheses, resistance, and quantum mechanics are all false. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:25, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::::The "point" is that Wikipedians (liberal wannabee scientists) won't state which theory is contradicted by the data. You're just guessing when you say "Newton and relativity."

::::This is like the feminists who won't use certain words, like "girl" or "gentlemanly". If confronted with a situation where no substitute works, a feminist will still find a way not to say the "forbidden" word. They'll congratulate a new mother on her baby girl by calling her a "baby woman"!

::::Try saying expressly on Wikipedia that the theory of relativity is contradicted by the Pioneer data and watch that be erased by its liberal editors. Do you think that is science, or logic?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:32, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::::: I am not guessing. Just read the WP page. It says, "The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviation ... slowing down slightly more than expected ... The anomaly has no universally accepted explanation." Possible explanations include "modification of the law of gravity." Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range. They are either both accurate or inaccurate. What more do you want? The article has links to modified gravity theories. What does this have to do with this CP relativity page? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:31, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::::: You are guessing that "Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range." I doubt they predict identical results for this Pioneer data. Does the Pioneer anomaly contradict only the theory of relativity, or Newtonian gravity also? Are the data closer to one theory than the other? If this were science, then the Wikipedia article would say. Of course, this isn't really science, and Wikipedians won't expressly admit the data conflicts with relativity. If you inserted mention of the theory of relativity into the Wikipedia page, then I bet it would be erased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 26 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::I would expect that the results at that range would be in the margin of error for both theories. General relativity only starts to become significant in extreme gravitational fields and the earth does not have an extreme gravitational field.

:::::::As for Wikipedia covering up evidence regarding relativity to suit a liberal bias, let me make a comment about that. I happen to also be active on Wikipedia, and from my experience the kind of people that edit the science pages are not the same kind of people who generally edit the political/philosophy pages. I have noticed a great deal of political bias in the people who dominate the latter pages, but not at all the former. I really don't think they did is -if they did it at all- for political reasons. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

::::::::The results are not within the standard of error. You're in denial: the results contradict the theory of relativity. And Wikipedians will never allow that truth on their pages. The Wikipedians who edit the science paiges there are just as liberal as those who edit the other pages, and it's implausible to suggest otherwise. Check out the global warming pages on Wikipedia, for example, if you doubt this. (My response to your earlier comments are below).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::: The Pioneer anomaly is not known to contradict either relativity or Newtonian gravity. Contradicting gravity is just one of several possible explanations, and no one is accepted. If it contradicts one then it contradicts the other, as the two theories say the same for Pioneer data. The gravity on Pioneer is extremely weak, and far outside the range where relativity would make any difference. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:20, 27 November 2009 (EST)

== Reply to Johanan Raatz ==

Mr. Raatz said, "Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed ...."

:Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''. Predictably you will say you never thought or heard about this logical problem before, so please then comment on ''why'' you've never thought or heard about this logical flaw. By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades.

Mr. Raatz says his "best argument" is the "Michelson-Morley experiment."

:If that's your best argument, then this case is closed. That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.

Mr. Raatz asks, "How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?"

:What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.

Mr. Raatz says, "You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this."

:You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible. Why is that? The Bible sells 100 times more copies ''annually'' than books on the New York Times bestseller list, and is undeniably the most influential book in history (Newton attributed his insights to it), yet relativists don't read it. Do you? The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.

Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable.

Mr. Raatz says he "believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason" and "I am no liberal."

:Really? So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray? I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it.

Mr. Raatz says, "RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM."

:Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism. Check out the first few pages of the respected historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, where he links the "discovery" of relativity to the popularity of moral relativism that followed. He's studied history more than you have, I think.

Mr. Raatz wrote, "LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves ...."

:LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons. You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle. How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do? That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)

== Reply to Andrew Schlafly ==

*1.) :Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''.

The same relativistic mass is not observed in the reference frame orthogonal to the motion. However the total velocity between two objects can be calculated using the Pythagorean theorem in all 3 directions. This is the velocity which is used to calculate relativistic mass and other Lorentz transformations.

*2.) "By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades."

Yes because relativistic mass has been OBSERVED for decades.

*3.) If that's your best argument, then this case is closed. That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.

If the light had been traveling at different velocities as the Earth orbited the sun why then did I not see different interference patterns? In the experiment I indirectly observed the speed of light to be the same regardless of reference frame.

Question you have a background in law and engineering. Do you have a background in physics?

*4.)What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.

Hmm, ok so there is another theory out there that explains why time slows down with respect to another reference frame, that is not relativity? I would very much like to hear about this theory.

*5.)Do you?

Yes I've read the Bible. And I find it insulting that you would assume otherwise.

*6.) You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible. Why is that?

Well are you going to tell me what this supposed contradiction is? I looked at the conservative words essay and I found "non-local" there. In the definition I found a reference to Jesus healing the sick kid from far away. If you mean to tell me that this violated relativity then you are wrong. First of all, such an action could have occurred at the speed of light and would have allowed for the kid to get better before his father returned home. Secondly Jesus being omnipotent has access to Hilbert space and therefore could operate outside of space-time.

*7.)The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.

You clearly do not know my physics dept. then. Of all the science depts. this one has the highest number of Christians and conservatives than any of the others. In fact many of my friends (the same ones who study relativity) would read the Bible in the physics lounge. (and this was not isolated to the undergrads)

*8.)Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable.

That's not what I was asking. I was asking how one theory -relativity(independent of who believes it) is comparable to another -AGW (independent of those who believe it)

*9.)Really? So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray? I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it.

Try me! You bet wrong. Prayer in schools is very good for the salutory effect it has on society. Read Irving Kristol.

*10.)Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism.

Yes that's because the masses are idiots. That's not relativities fault though. It should be noted that Einstein thought that the label of "relativity" for his theory was shoddy and that he wanted a better one. Unfortunately "relativity" stuck and as a result some idiots took it the wrong way. I can not do anything about this, but it does not imply that relativity is wrong.

*11.):LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons.

No gravity waves. Gravitons are far smaller and according to my personal model of quantum gravity do not exist as such. (well technically they "exist" in a sense, but that would be a bad way of thinking about how gravity is quantized)Gravitons are a shoddy way to describe the real phenomenon. Gravity waves are not the same as gravitons though.

*12.)"You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle.
In today's world that level of money is not a boondoggle. Social spending is a boondoggle, cap&trade is a boondoggle, and healthcare is a boondoggle, spending a little money on sciences is not a boondoggle. Look in comparison to other programs this is a pittance. It's like the liberals who complain that NASA is taking up too much money when it is only spending less than 10 bill a year compared to the 100's of billions eaten up by their social programs.

Besides I am a neoconservative and do not have exactly the same philosophy on government programs that other conservatives might. I mostly agree on opposing socialism in government programs, but that isn't the same thing as basic projects for the public good or for the advancement of science.

*13.)"How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do?"

Fair enough. I believe LIGO accepts donations as well.

*14.)That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.

Most people would like to revolutionize astronomy with the gravitational equivalent of the telescope wouldn't you agree?

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

P.S. if you really think I'm a liberal, look up my group MemeShock on facebook. You will see that I am most definitely not a liberal nor a leftist. Please stop making assumptions about me.

:'''REPLY''':

:1)Johanan wrote, "The same relativistic mass is not observed in the reference frame orthogonal to the motion."

::No one changed the reference frame. I said there is a force orthogonal to the high velocity that supposedly causes an increase in relativistic mass. Mass is a scalar, not a vector. Does that force have to contend with the relativistic mass as claimed? You even say that this has been observed, so the answer should be easy for you.

:3) Johanan wrote, "If the light had been traveling at different velocities as the Earth orbited the sun why then did I not see different interference patterns?"

::Michelson-Morley suggests that an ether does not exist, but it in no way proves the many claims of relativity.

: Johanan wrote, "Question you have a background in law and engineering. Do you have a background in physics?"

:: So you're going to try to plug weaknesses in your argument with a personal put-down? Not here.

: Johanan wrote, "Yes I've read the Bible."

:: Many read it in their youth. That makes the ''termination of reading the Bible'' by them all the more striking. I asked if you read the Bible (now). Once people buy into relativity, they stop reading it. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. That speaks volumes about what relativity really is.

:6) Johanan wrote, "Well are you going to tell me what this supposed contradiction is? I looked at the conservative words essay and I found "non-local" there. In the definition I found a reference to Jesus healing the sick kid from far away. If you mean to tell me that this violated relativity then you are wrong. First of all, such an action could have occurred at the speed of light and would have allowed for the kid to get better before his father returned home. Secondly Jesus being omnipotent has access to Hilbert space and therefore could operate outside of space-time."

::The healing occurred instantaneously and, yes, that contradicts the assumption in relativity about no information traveling faster than the speed of light. There are no exceptions allowed by relativity. It's a real contradiction. It's a not a "sign" as described by the Bible if it is impossible.

:7)Johanan wrote, "You clearly do not know my physics dept. then. Of all the science depts. this one has the highest number of Christians and conservatives than any of the others. In fact many of my friends (the same ones who study relativity) would read the Bible in the physics lounge. (and this was not isolated to the undergrads)

::Maybe you have 95-year-old pack-a-day cigarette smokers there too, who have never been sick a day in their lives. Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types. Keep in mind that many of the promoters of the phony man-made global warming are physics professors.

:8)Johanan wrote, "That's not what I was asking. I was asking how one theory -relativity(independent of who believes it) is comparable to another -AGW (independent of those who believe it)"

::The correlation is unmistakable. Perhaps both attract people who like to misuse science for liberal goals.

:9)Johanan wrote, "Prayer in schools is very good for the salutory effect it has on society. Read Irving Kristol."

::Do you support classroom prayer then? A clear "yes" would suffice.

:10)Johanan wrote, "... the masses are idiots. That's not relativities [sic] fault though. It should be noted that Einstein thought that the label of "relativity" for his theory was shoddy and that he wanted a better one. Unfortunately "relativity" stuck and as a result some idiots took it the wrong way. I can not do anything about this, but it does not imply that relativity is wrong."

::So ... you're fine with promoting something that is misleading the "masses" and harming their lives, as long as you can say it is their fault, not yours.

::Johanan, I spend my time helping people. Relativity has not helped a single person in any way, ever. It's misled and hurt a lot of people. Relativity is the most unproductive theory ever embraced, and it's a complete dead-end. I'm not going to waste more of my time on it, and I encourage you to open your mind and become more productive yourself.

:Johanan wrote, "P.S. if you really think I'm a liberal, look up my group MemeShock on facebook. You will see that I am most definitely not a liberal nor a leftist. Please stop making assumptions about me."

::You don't seem to be much of a conservative either. Conservatives advance society in a productive way. Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite that wastes taxpayer money, misleads well-intentioned students and pushes the masses toward relativism. Yet you're spending your time defending and promoting it. I'm moving on to more productive topics on this site, and hope you can do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:::It's not just an issue in the States; all over the world huge amounts of government (ie taxpayers') money is being spent promoting this theory. Why would governments spend so much on something that turns people away from the Bible? I think we all know the answer to that... [[User:TrondE|TrondE]] 23:08, 27 November 2009 (EST)

::::You're asking the wrong question TrondE. The question is "Does relativity turn people away from the Bible?" If you research relativity and relativism you'll discover that relativism only latches onto to relativity for incidental reasons. Furthermore the reasons for relativism's success exist for entirely different reasons. We'd have the 60's with or without Einstein. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::'''REPLY'''::

*Andy Wrote: "I said there is a force orthogonal to the high velocity that supposedly causes an increase in relativistic mass. Mass is a scalar, not a vector. Does that force have to contend with the relativistic mass as claimed?"

:::Yes.

:::You don't measure only one component of the velocity when you are measuring the relative velocity. You combine them with the Pythagorean theorem. So there is no change in mass when you are in a reference frame orthogonal to the moving object than when you are in a reference frame paralel to it.

*Andy Wrote: Michelson-Morley suggests that an ether does not exist, but it in no way proves the many claims of relativity.

:::Actually it's the basis for the postulate that the c is the same in all reference frames. You wrongly claimed that this was an assumption, but it is based on experimental evidence.

:::If the ether does not exist than "c" does not have a preferred reference frame to be constant in. Thus instead it is constant in all reference frames.

:::To be fair there was a third model "ballistic theory" which suggested that the photons moved at speed c with respect to their emitters, but this was ruled out by observation. It led to several optical effects that were not seen in astronomical photographs, notably in observations of binary stars in which the light from the two stars could be measured in an interferometer. If it were correct, the light from the stars should cause fringe shifting due to the velocity of the stars being added to the speed of the light, but again, no such effect could be seen. The only remaining model was the Lorentzian one.

*Andy Wrote: So you're going to try to plug weaknesses in your argument with a personal put-down? Not here.

:::No, I brought it up because you make several statements in the page which are blatantly erroneous. First of all you argue that relativity is not based on evidence but assumptions, which is simply not true as we are discussing here, then you do not seem to understand why quantum non-locality does not violate relativity, and lastly you ignore the vast experimental evidence in support of it. Most notably the massive time dilation observed in muon particles. I can only guess based on this that you don't have enough background in physics.

*Andy Wrote: "Many read it in their youth. That makes the ''termination of reading the Bible'' by them all the more striking."

Well I was just reading it earlier today and last week as well.

*Andy Wrote: "Once people buy into relativity, they stop reading it. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. That speaks volumes about what relativity really is."

:::That sounds strikingly like the "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. I don't know where you got the idea that reading relativity as opposed to any other theory caused this, but the connection you are implying is absurd and baseless. Where is your statistical evidence that tells you that people who read about relativity as opposed to say plate tectonic theory or germ theory are more likely to not read their Bible's afterwards? This suggestion that there is a connection is simply quite ridiculous.

*Andy wrote: "The healing occurred instantaneously and, yes, that contradicts the assumption in relativity about no information traveling faster than the speed of light. There are no exceptions allowed by relativity. It's a real contradiction. It's a not a "sign" as described by the Bible if it is impossible."

:::It's not a contradiction of relativity if Jesus can operate outside of space-time. Relativity does not say anything about what goes on outside of space-time. You failed to address my suggestion of this possibility though.

*Andy Wrote "Maybe you have 95-year-old pack-a-day cigarette smokers there too, who have never been sick a day in their lives. Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types. Keep in mind that many of the promoters of the phony man-made global warming are physics professors."

:::Look I don't know what personal experiences you had at Harvard, but coming from my dept. these claims are down right bizarre:

::::"Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types."

:::Well I'm denying it for one. Listen, you keep spouting this off, but there is simply no basis for it. Relativists are no more liberal than quantum theorists, particle physicists, or those who study superconductors. I haven't the slightest notion where you got this idea.

*Andy Wrote: "The correlation is unmistakable. Perhaps both attract people who like to misuse science for liberal goals."

:::Andy, part of this whole discussion is WHETHER OR NOT relativity supports a liberal goal NOT IF. To say that the correlation is unmistakable because those who promote relativity are misusing science for liberal goals is begging the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy, and does not resolve anything.

*Andy Wrote: "Do you support classroom prayer then? A clear "yes" would suffice."

:::Ok YES, and FYI I was also homeschooled from 1st grade to 12th, voted for Bush in 04, write conservative editorials for my school paper nearly every week, and run the largest right-wing memetic engineering group on facebook.

*Andy Wrote: "So ... you're fine with promoting something that is misleading the "masses" and harming their lives, as long as you can say it is their fault, not yours."

:::1.)Ok look, first of all relativISM appeared for reasons entirely different than relativITY. Supporters of relativISM seized upon relativITY to lend credence to their view. However, relativism would both exist and flourish WITHOUT relativity. The relativism in today's society is not caused by relativity. Relativity is merely incidental to relativism.

:::2.) Secondly, just because something can cause people to go to a wrong conclusion does not make that thing wrong. Relativism is a wrong conclusion. Relativity in my theory is a right premise. Just because some people use a non sequiter argument to jump from one to the other does not make relativity wrong. You have to understand that relativity is true or false INDEPENDENT of whether or not it causes certain people who are ignorant of relativity to be adherents of moral relativism.

:::3.) With this in mind I will note you might consider certain scientific discoveries as what Leo Strauss would think of as "dangerous truths." There are currently several such theories that if taken the wrong way might tend one towards atheism which in turn could lead to moral relativism. As such I prefer them to be left to the scientific world and not popularized in such a way to undermine moral values, however that does not make them any less true or false. I do not personally think of relativity to be one of these, but if you do that's fine, just remember that just because something might have adverse effects to the untrained mind doesn't make it any less true or false in itself.

*Andy Wrote: "Johanan, I spend my time helping people. Relativity has not helped a single person in any way, ever. It's misled and hurt a lot of people. Relativity is the most unproductive theory ever embraced, and it's a complete dead-end."

:::That's not true. It's led (not misled) people to make great advances in astronomy, and it HAS been productive in keeping particle's alive in particle accelerators for far longer than would normally be allowed. Furthermore it is useful in keeping GPS satellites on time when they start to slip off by a few seconds every year: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html GPS recievers calculate for gravitational time dilation to keep on track. Lastly you can't tell me that this if it works will not be both very cool and very useful: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/timetravel-01a.html

*Andy Wrote: "I'm not going to waste more of my time on it, and I encourage you to open your mind and become more productive yourself."

:::Then explain muon time dilation without relativity. I'm highly skeptical that another explanation exists, but if you can find one by all means share it.

*Andy Wrote:"You don't seem to be much of a conservative either. Conservatives advance society in a productive way. Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite that wastes taxpayer money,
misleads well-intentioned students and pushes the masses toward relativism. Yet you're spending your time defending and promoting it.

:::This is circular reasoning Andy. You start with your conclusion: "Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite" and argue back that therefore I must not be a conservative because conservatives are productive. Remember we are still debating whether or not relativity is productive. You also haven't proved why it misleads well-intentioned students. You can't argue that funding LIGO is liberal because relativity is an unproductive theory and therefore LIGO will be unproductive.

:::In a few years you might be surprised at what LIGO will do. I for one would love a new way to map dark matter. It would be a very nice way to figure out if I am on the right track with my quantum gravity theory for one thing.

*Andy Wrote: "I'm moving on to more productive topics on this site, and hope you can do likewise."

:::Don't worry, I intend to put together and edit many political pages that I think you will like! ;)

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

==Request for References==
Andy, you've said several times that learning relativity causes people to stop reading the bible, and that specialists in relativity are more liberal than physics professors (who are more liberal than college professors overall). Do you have any sources for these claims? In my experience, people in physics are as conservative as other fields of science, and more so than biologists. Thanks in advance for the sources. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 13:22, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:You can see plenty of evidence on the talk pages here. In addition, I've seen at least one survey indicating that the level of atheism is higher among physicists than, say, mathematics, despite the close connection between the fields. There are also prominent, widely promoted physicists who describe themselves as atheists, such as Richard Feynman and Steven Weinberg, more so than in mathematics or other analogous fields.

:Spend some time in a physics department, as I have, and you won't doubt that belief in relativity and reading/discussing the Bible are inversely correlated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:: Could you link to the study you have referenced above, or give some information on it? Also, as you've pointed out, knowing one person who smoked into their seventies and didn't get cancer does not prove anything. Similarly, the anecdotal evidence on this talk page doesn't verify your claim. The evidence from the talk page seems to lean the other way- most of the editors seem to think that plenty of physicists who believe in relativity also read the Bible, but it is all anecdotal. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 08:12, 29 November 2009 (EST)

:: Yes, there are some physicists who are atheists, but what is the relation to relativity? Can you even show me one person who understands relativity and does not believe it? There are people who think that relativity might have to be modified to explain some anomaly, or people who propose such hypotheses such as this [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space]. But who denies the basics of relativity? I'll count people inside or outside physics departments, but not articles like this CP page that are filled with inaccuracies about what relativity is. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::The defense of relativity grows increasingly illogical. Now the promoters' test is whether there is "one person who understands relativity and does not believe it?"

:::OK, let's try that test out. The Koran is written in Arabic, and I can't name one person who understands it who does not believe it. Does that mean, per your logic, that it must therefore be true? All liberal theories rely on double standards, and you've just established one for your theory.

:::Note, by the way, that relativity is a mathematical system. It does not adapt to counterexamples any more than number theory could adapt to a revelation that 1+1 did not quite equal 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes, there are a lot of people understand the Koran and do not believe it. Eg, here is a leftist-atheist-evolutionist who read the Koran (altho probably an English translation). [http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/the-dangers-of-islam-wright-vs-hitchens/]
:::: I am not arguing that relativity is true. I am just arguing to correct the errors in this CP article. If relativity does not have counterexamples, then why does the article complain about discontinuties and logic problems? It can be mathematically proved that no such discontinuities or logic problems exist.
:::: You say that belief in relativity is correlated with various other beliefs, but you offer no support at all. I do deny those correlations. They are contrary to my experience, and contrary to common sense. Do you have some examples of right-wingers who say that relativity is entirely wrong? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:54, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::::I found nothing of value in your link, and certainly nothing claiming that anyone read the real Koran (in Arabic) and didn't believe it. You have a [[double standard]] for relativity.

:::::But if you're not arguing that relativity is true, then that point is moot. Relativity has many counterexamples, and it looks like we need an entry analogous to [[counterexamples to evolution]]. The Pioneer "anomaly", the more precise Mercury perihelion data, the discontinuity as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, the logical problem of an orthogonal force on relativistic mass, the lack of curvature in overall space as observed by measurements, the universe near the Big Bang, and I think even new data for the pulsar for which the sole Nobel Prize for relativity tends to disprove it. As if that weren't enough, the Bible contradicts relativity also. As to people who say relativity is false, there's a long list (such as Tom Bethell) but I've already demonstrated that argument to be fallacious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:23, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::::::"Relativity has many counterexamples, and it looks like we need an entry analogous to counterexamples to evolution."

::::::Cherry-picking the anomalous data points that don't fit into relativity, while ignoring the vast majority of the evidence which does confirm it is not scientific. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:: "You can see plenty of evidence on the talk pages here." I don't think that makes a good citation for an encyclopedia article. Do we have any citations to something more concrete and objective? --[[user:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

== A Word on Relativism ==

Despite implications made here relativism did not come into being or become popular due to relativity. The roots of modern popular relativism can be traced back to Freud and in particular a group of neo-Marxist intellectuals known as the "critical theorists" who combined Marx with Freud to argue that all morality was merely a construct to be "liberated" from:

http://mildcolonialboy.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/political-correctness-is-cultural-marxism-part-iii-speech-by-william-lind/

Basically they viewed all ideologies (even correct ones) as "oppressive." Therefore any correct moral system based on an objective ideology was "wrong" in their eyes. Thus no one moral system could be thought of as correct -hence relativism.

The critical theorists came over around WW2 to escape Germany and set up in the States. Here they then were the movers and shakers behind the counterculture of the 60's, which is where moral relativism comes from today.

Again it has nothing to do with relativity. It would have gone off on it's own with or without relativity.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:That overlooks what the leading British historian Paul Johnson says (he starts his book about the 20th century with a discussion of the theory of relativity, and how it led to increased relativism), that overlooks what the liberal law professor Laurence Tribe says (he wrote a law review article linking the theory of relativity to a call for more [[abortion]] "rights"), that overlooks what now-President [[Barack Obama]] did in allegedly helping with that article, and that downplays the dictionary dates for the terms:

::relativity (1834)
::relativism (1865), but its secondary meaning about moral relativity came later, I think, and its additional meaning is this: "relativity".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:42, 28 November 2009 (EST)

Jfrattz, I see that despite my admonition on your user talk page, you continue to engage in 90/10 bickering over relativity, with the same re-hashed points that you and countless others have brought up before. Go write a new article, or find one that could benefit from more information. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:43, 28 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-11-29T16:35:18Z

NgSmith: /* Request for References */

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

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

For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 1|Archive 1]], [[Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 2|Archive 2]]



== Jfraatz's comments ==

:: Andrew;

::Relativity predicts absurd physical discontinuities

::I've studied relativity in depth, and those paradoxes all have very neat resolutions once you account for the change in reference frame.

::"and it contradicts logic,"

::That doesn't follow. Relativity is based on two premises and follows very logically from them.

::"the evidence,"

::On the contrary:

::Special relativity:

::1. E=mc^2: nuclear power and the atomic bomb
2. Time dilation: The airplane experiments, and the time dilation of subatomic particle decay rates in a particle accelerator.
3.Mass increase: The exponential increase in energy required to get things fractionally closer to the speed of light.

::General relativity:

::1. Prediction of a non-static universe.
2. Gravity waves -detected by their combined perturbative effect to a the rotation of a neutron star
3. Gravitational microlensing.
4. Time dilation experiments conducted with skyscrapers
5. Red-shifting near gravitational sources.

::"and the Bible."

::That is a very bizarre claim. There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts relativity and it is about like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. I'm curious. Where did you get this idea?

::"The biggest promoters of relativity today are more liberal than the Democratic Party, and that's saying a lot."

::""First of all that's an ad hominem. Secondly it's not true. The physics department at my SECULAR university has a higher predominance of conservative and Christian people than any of the other sciences and much more so than the Marxist laden humanities departments.

::The professor who taught my relativity class -who happens to be the department expert on general relativity and quantum gravity- even invited us all to a talk after class once regarding the possibility of intelligent design of the physical constants. As it turns out this talk about intelligent design of the physical constants was given by a world famous physicist who happened to specialize in general relativity.

::"Promoting relativity causes a great deal of harm in how people view the world,"

::No, you're confusing relativity with relativism. The two are radically different. My other interest is in philosophy and the people in the philosophy dept. -many of whom are left-wing- laugh at the postmodernists who try to prove relativism with relativity.

::One is a physical theory based on constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames and the equivalence of physics in all reference frames. The other is a moral and epistemological theory that says that there are no absolutes. Special and general relativity are founded on absolutes. RelativiTY does not cause any harm. RelativiSM causes a lot of trouble. The two have nothing in common though save for a similar sounding name.

::"and has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars on fruitless projects like LIGO."

::LIGO, (which my university participates in -we do the supercomputer analysis of the data) has no results yet because they still need to make the instruments another order of magnitude stronger before they can get results.

::And LIGO is not a waste of money. Once they can detect gravity waves they will have a whole new way to study astronomy. The idea is to turn it into the gravity wave equivalent of a telescope. Instead of seeing the universe in light only we can see it in gravity waves as well. The advances in science accomplished by this are well worth the money put into them. A few million dollars is nothing compared to the billions the government wastes on social programs, and is a legitimate usage of money rather than money wasted on welfare programs. It's like funding NASA, you'd agree that manned moon landings are worth while right?

::":You've heard none of this before because liberals control universities and don't allow open discussion and debate about their pet theories."

::No I've heard them before, but the arguments made are easily debunked and are rather pseudoscientific in nature. Usually the people making them don't even understand the theory properly. And I have no idea where you get the idea that they would have a political agenda that needs relativity to support it. Once again relativity and relativism are two very different things. Einstein even once said that he though that the theory of relativity was a poor choice of names.

::"Perhaps you think man-made global warming is not a liberal theory either?"

::Where do you come off comparing the two? One is a derived science open to much biased interpretation and data manipulation, the other is experimentally validated every time we turn on a particle accelerator. In fact some of the experiments they do at these labs require relativity to work. If relativity is false then they could not be doing the experiments that they are doing.

::And no Newtonian Mechanics and Atomic theory are not liberal theories either.

::I'm awfully curious as to what motivated this anti-relativity view. Your implication that relativity is "liberal" in any sense is highly bizarre. Also why single out relavity rather than QM classical mechanics or electrodynamics?

--[[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

::::I would like to note that I have used a political analog of general relativity as a means to create a model for how to warp the political fabric with corporatism so as to correct the democratic failure causing abortion. By modifying the analog of an "economic status-debt" tensor one can leverage misbehaving abortive parents into proper behavior by using corporate leverage on the democratic process. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

Johanan, relativity is disproved by the Pioneer anomaly, for starters. The absurd discontinuities include what happens in the limit as velocity approaches the speed of light. The logical flaws include the defect of relativistic mass. Relativity has produced nothing of value, and certainly not the achievements you claim above. It's wasted hundreds of millions in taxpayer money and confused the minds of many.

Pick your very best argument and be concise if you have an open mind and want to discuss this. If your mind is closed and made up, then I recommend Wikipedia for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::First of all there are no absurd results when you reach relativistic velocities. Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed -unless you want to say that empirically observed measurements of such can not be so because they are illogical.

::MY BEST ARGUMENT: As a physics major I have done the Michelson-Morley experiment in my modern physics lab and seen the results with my own eyes. You can not tell me that relativity is based on assumptions rather than observations, as I have seen the very same observations that are the basis for relativity. Unless of course you are arguing that it can't be so and therefore my eyes must be deceiving me.

::QUESTIONS: 1.)How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?
::2.) You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this. Saying this is almost like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. In what way does it contradict the Bible?
::3.)You compared relativity to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). One is prone to much more interpretation than relativity and has been found to be based on fraudulent data. The effects of relativity by contrast empirically confirmed every time the particle accelerator at Fermilab turns on, and it is far more simple to observe and confirm than AGW. So my question is where do you come off comparing the two?

::COMMENTS: 1.)As someone who believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason. Despite your implication that relativity is a "liberal" theory I am no liberal and am therefore not so open-minded that my brains fall out. If something doesn't fit into objective a priori principles and empirical observation I have a hard time taking it seriously -I don't buy post-modernism or the idea that you can determine truth outside of objective means.
::2.)Relativists in physics are not particularly liberal. My special relativity professor who happens to be the dept. specialist on relativity and quantum gravity even invited us to a talk after class one day. The topic was on the possibility of the intelligent design of the physical constants -at a secular university no less. The talk itself was to be given by a prominent physicist who also happened to specialize in relativity. You can't tell me that an extremely liberal professor would be inviting his students to talks on the possibility of intelligent design.
::3.)RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM. I also happen to have a minor in philosophy, and relativism is not based on the same premises as relativity, nor does it have anything in common with relativity. The post-modernist sorts that try to prove the latter from the former are laughed at by philosophers of both left and right-wing stripes. You needn't worry about relativity causing relativism.
::4.)Gravity waves have already been confirmed by there effects on neutron star rotation. LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves but rather as a telescope to see the universe in a "gravitational spectrum" in the same way you would normally see it with light. This is why they are spending so much money on it and it is well worth the cost -even $1-2billion. It will revolutionize astronomy once they increase the sensitivity by another order of magnitude or so -they are very close now. If you want to slash spending, the social programs spend hundreds of times that. LIGO isn't the money sucker, welfare etc. is. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

: No, the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity. It barely has anything to do with relativity. How do you think that NASA is ever able to have any successful space missions, if all its theories of gravity have been disproved? There are no discontinuities or logical flaws. Relativistic mass was already being confirmed in 1901, just a couple of years after it was predicted. Do you have any reliable sources for any of what you say? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:13, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::You say, "the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity." What do you think the "anomaly" is from, if not relativity?

::Perhaps you agree with Wikipedians, who admit that the data from the spacecraft is contrary to what is "predicted", but the Wikipedians refuse to admit that the contradicted theory is the theory of relativity![http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly] Maybe that omission fools some people, but it doesn't fool conservatives aware of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:28, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::Since when is relativity is a liberal theory? I have yet to see a good argument to this effect. [[User:jfraatz:Johanan Raatz]]

::: I was the one who told you about the Pioneer anomaly. Possible explanations are listed on the WP page. One possibility is a gravitational effect different from known theories (Newton and relativity). But what is your point? The WP page already says that. You are not addressing the errors in this article. The stuff about discontinuities, hypotheses, resistance, and quantum mechanics are all false. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:25, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::::The "point" is that Wikipedians (liberal wannabee scientists) won't state which theory is contradicted by the data. You're just guessing when you say "Newton and relativity."

::::This is like the feminists who won't use certain words, like "girl" or "gentlemanly". If confronted with a situation where no substitute works, a feminist will still find a way not to say the "forbidden" word. They'll congratulate a new mother on her baby girl by calling her a "baby woman"!

::::Try saying expressly on Wikipedia that the theory of relativity is contradicted by the Pioneer data and watch that be erased by its liberal editors. Do you think that is science, or logic?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:32, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::::: I am not guessing. Just read the WP page. It says, "The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviation ... slowing down slightly more than expected ... The anomaly has no universally accepted explanation." Possible explanations include "modification of the law of gravity." Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range. They are either both accurate or inaccurate. What more do you want? The article has links to modified gravity theories. What does this have to do with this CP relativity page? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:31, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::::: You are guessing that "Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range." I doubt they predict identical results for this Pioneer data. Does the Pioneer anomaly contradict only the theory of relativity, or Newtonian gravity also? Are the data closer to one theory than the other? If this were science, then the Wikipedia article would say. Of course, this isn't really science, and Wikipedians won't expressly admit the data conflicts with relativity. If you inserted mention of the theory of relativity into the Wikipedia page, then I bet it would be erased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 26 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::I would expect that the results at that range would be in the margin of error for both theories. General relativity only starts to become significant in extreme gravitational fields and the earth does not have an extreme gravitational field.

:::::::As for Wikipedia covering up evidence regarding relativity to suit a liberal bias, let me make a comment about that. I happen to also be active on Wikipedia, and from my experience the kind of people that edit the science pages are not the same kind of people who generally edit the political/philosophy pages. I have noticed a great deal of political bias in the people who dominate the latter pages, but not at all the former. I really don't think they did is -if they did it at all- for political reasons. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

::::::::The results are not within the standard of error. You're in denial: the results contradict the theory of relativity. And Wikipedians will never allow that truth on their pages. The Wikipedians who edit the science paiges there are just as liberal as those who edit the other pages, and it's implausible to suggest otherwise. Check out the global warming pages on Wikipedia, for example, if you doubt this. (My response to your earlier comments are below).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::: The Pioneer anomaly is not known to contradict either relativity or Newtonian gravity. Contradicting gravity is just one of several possible explanations, and no one is accepted. If it contradicts one then it contradicts the other, as the two theories say the same for Pioneer data. The gravity on Pioneer is extremely weak, and far outside the range where relativity would make any difference. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:20, 27 November 2009 (EST)

== Reply to Johanan Raatz ==

Mr. Raatz said, "Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed ...."

:Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''. Predictably you will say you never thought or heard about this logical problem before, so please then comment on ''why'' you've never thought or heard about this logical flaw. By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades.

Mr. Raatz says his "best argument" is the "Michelson-Morley experiment."

:If that's your best argument, then this case is closed. That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.

Mr. Raatz asks, "How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?"

:What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.

Mr. Raatz says, "You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this."

:You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible. Why is that? The Bible sells 100 times more copies ''annually'' than books on the New York Times bestseller list, and is undeniably the most influential book in history (Newton attributed his insights to it), yet relativists don't read it. Do you? The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.

Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable.

Mr. Raatz says he "believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason" and "I am no liberal."

:Really? So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray? I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it.

Mr. Raatz says, "RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM."

:Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism. Check out the first few pages of the respected historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, where he links the "discovery" of relativity to the popularity of moral relativism that followed. He's studied history more than you have, I think.

Mr. Raatz wrote, "LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves ...."

:LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons. You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle. How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do? That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)

== Reply to Andrew Schlafly ==

*1.) :Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''.

The same relativistic mass is not observed in the reference frame orthogonal to the motion. However the total velocity between two objects can be calculated using the Pythagorean theorem in all 3 directions. This is the velocity which is used to calculate relativistic mass and other Lorentz transformations.

*2.) "By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades."

Yes because relativistic mass has been OBSERVED for decades.

*3.) If that's your best argument, then this case is closed. That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.

If the light had been traveling at different velocities as the Earth orbited the sun why then did I not see different interference patterns? In the experiment I indirectly observed the speed of light to be the same regardless of reference frame.

Question you have a background in law and engineering. Do you have a background in physics?

*4.)What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.

Hmm, ok so there is another theory out there that explains why time slows down with respect to another reference frame, that is not relativity? I would very much like to hear about this theory.

*5.)Do you?

Yes I've read the Bible. And I find it insulting that you would assume otherwise.

*6.) You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible. Why is that?

Well are you going to tell me what this supposed contradiction is? I looked at the conservative words essay and I found "non-local" there. In the definition I found a reference to Jesus healing the sick kid from far away. If you mean to tell me that this violated relativity then you are wrong. First of all, such an action could have occurred at the speed of light and would have allowed for the kid to get better before his father returned home. Secondly Jesus being omnipotent has access to Hilbert space and therefore could operate outside of space-time.

*7.)The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.

You clearly do not know my physics dept. then. Of all the science depts. this one has the highest number of Christians and conservatives than any of the others. In fact many of my friends (the same ones who study relativity) would read the Bible in the physics lounge. (and this was not isolated to the undergrads)

*8.)Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable.

That's not what I was asking. I was asking how one theory -relativity(independent of who believes it) is comparable to another -AGW (independent of those who believe it)

*9.)Really? So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray? I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it.

Try me! You bet wrong. Prayer in schools is very good for the salutory effect it has on society. Read Irving Kristol.

*10.)Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism.

Yes that's because the masses are idiots. That's not relativities fault though. It should be noted that Einstein thought that the label of "relativity" for his theory was shoddy and that he wanted a better one. Unfortunately "relativity" stuck and as a result some idiots took it the wrong way. I can not do anything about this, but it does not imply that relativity is wrong.

*11.):LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons.

No gravity waves. Gravitons are far smaller and according to my personal model of quantum gravity do not exist as such. (well technically they "exist" in a sense, but that would be a bad way of thinking about how gravity is quantized)Gravitons are a shoddy way to describe the real phenomenon. Gravity waves are not the same as gravitons though.

*12.)"You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle.
In today's world that level of money is not a boondoggle. Social spending is a boondoggle, cap&trade is a boondoggle, and healthcare is a boondoggle, spending a little money on sciences is not a boondoggle. Look in comparison to other programs this is a pittance. It's like the liberals who complain that NASA is taking up too much money when it is only spending less than 10 bill a year compared to the 100's of billions eaten up by their social programs.

Besides I am a neoconservative and do not have exactly the same philosophy on government programs that other conservatives might. I mostly agree on opposing socialism in government programs, but that isn't the same thing as basic projects for the public good or for the advancement of science.

*13.)"How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do?"

Fair enough. I believe LIGO accepts donations as well.

*14.)That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.

Most people would like to revolutionize astronomy with the gravitational equivalent of the telescope wouldn't you agree?

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

P.S. if you really think I'm a liberal, look up my group MemeShock on facebook. You will see that I am most definitely not a liberal nor a leftist. Please stop making assumptions about me.

:'''REPLY''':

:1)Johanan wrote, "The same relativistic mass is not observed in the reference frame orthogonal to the motion."

::No one changed the reference frame. I said there is a force orthogonal to the high velocity that supposedly causes an increase in relativistic mass. Mass is a scalar, not a vector. Does that force have to contend with the relativistic mass as claimed? You even say that this has been observed, so the answer should be easy for you.

:3) Johanan wrote, "If the light had been traveling at different velocities as the Earth orbited the sun why then did I not see different interference patterns?"

::Michelson-Morley suggests that an ether does not exist, but it in no way proves the many claims of relativity.

: Johanan wrote, "Question you have a background in law and engineering. Do you have a background in physics?"

:: So you're going to try to plug weaknesses in your argument with a personal put-down? Not here.

: Johanan wrote, "Yes I've read the Bible."

:: Many read it in their youth. That makes the ''termination of reading the Bible'' by them all the more striking. I asked if you read the Bible (now). Once people buy into relativity, they stop reading it. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. That speaks volumes about what relativity really is.

:6) Johanan wrote, "Well are you going to tell me what this supposed contradiction is? I looked at the conservative words essay and I found "non-local" there. In the definition I found a reference to Jesus healing the sick kid from far away. If you mean to tell me that this violated relativity then you are wrong. First of all, such an action could have occurred at the speed of light and would have allowed for the kid to get better before his father returned home. Secondly Jesus being omnipotent has access to Hilbert space and therefore could operate outside of space-time."

::The healing occurred instantaneously and, yes, that contradicts the assumption in relativity about no information traveling faster than the speed of light. There are no exceptions allowed by relativity. It's a real contradiction. It's a not a "sign" as described by the Bible if it is impossible.

:7)Johanan wrote, "You clearly do not know my physics dept. then. Of all the science depts. this one has the highest number of Christians and conservatives than any of the others. In fact many of my friends (the same ones who study relativity) would read the Bible in the physics lounge. (and this was not isolated to the undergrads)

::Maybe you have 95-year-old pack-a-day cigarette smokers there too, who have never been sick a day in their lives. Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types. Keep in mind that many of the promoters of the phony man-made global warming are physics professors.

:8)Johanan wrote, "That's not what I was asking. I was asking how one theory -relativity(independent of who believes it) is comparable to another -AGW (independent of those who believe it)"

::The correlation is unmistakable. Perhaps both attract people who like to misuse science for liberal goals.

:9)Johanan wrote, "Prayer in schools is very good for the salutory effect it has on society. Read Irving Kristol."

::Do you support classroom prayer then? A clear "yes" would suffice.

:10)Johanan wrote, "... the masses are idiots. That's not relativities [sic] fault though. It should be noted that Einstein thought that the label of "relativity" for his theory was shoddy and that he wanted a better one. Unfortunately "relativity" stuck and as a result some idiots took it the wrong way. I can not do anything about this, but it does not imply that relativity is wrong."

::So ... you're fine with promoting something that is misleading the "masses" and harming their lives, as long as you can say it is their fault, not yours.

::Johanan, I spend my time helping people. Relativity has not helped a single person in any way, ever. It's misled and hurt a lot of people. Relativity is the most unproductive theory ever embraced, and it's a complete dead-end. I'm not going to waste more of my time on it, and I encourage you to open your mind and become more productive yourself.

:Johanan wrote, "P.S. if you really think I'm a liberal, look up my group MemeShock on facebook. You will see that I am most definitely not a liberal nor a leftist. Please stop making assumptions about me."

::You don't seem to be much of a conservative either. Conservatives advance society in a productive way. Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite that wastes taxpayer money, misleads well-intentioned students and pushes the masses toward relativism. Yet you're spending your time defending and promoting it. I'm moving on to more productive topics on this site, and hope you can do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:::It's not just an issue in the States; all over the world huge amounts of government (ie taxpayers') money is being spent promoting this theory. Why would governments spend so much on something that turns people away from the Bible? I think we all know the answer to that... [[User:TrondE|TrondE]] 23:08, 27 November 2009 (EST)

::::You're asking the wrong question TrondE. The question is "Does relativity turn people away from the Bible?" If you research relativity and relativism you'll discover that relativism only latches onto to relativity for incidental reasons. Furthermore the reasons for relativism's success exist for entirely different reasons. We'd have the 60's with or without Einstein. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::'''REPLY'''::

*Andy Wrote: "I said there is a force orthogonal to the high velocity that supposedly causes an increase in relativistic mass. Mass is a scalar, not a vector. Does that force have to contend with the relativistic mass as claimed?"

:::Yes.

:::You don't measure only one component of the velocity when you are measuring the relative velocity. You combine them with the Pythagorean theorem. So there is no change in mass when you are in a reference frame orthogonal to the moving object than when you are in a reference frame paralel to it.

*Andy Wrote: Michelson-Morley suggests that an ether does not exist, but it in no way proves the many claims of relativity.

:::Actually it's the basis for the postulate that the c is the same in all reference frames. You wrongly claimed that this was an assumption, but it is based on experimental evidence.

:::If the ether does not exist than "c" does not have a preferred reference frame to be constant in. Thus instead it is constant in all reference frames.

:::To be fair there was a third model "ballistic theory" which suggested that the photons moved at speed c with respect to their emitters, but this was ruled out by observation. It led to several optical effects that were not seen in astronomical photographs, notably in observations of binary stars in which the light from the two stars could be measured in an interferometer. If it were correct, the light from the stars should cause fringe shifting due to the velocity of the stars being added to the speed of the light, but again, no such effect could be seen. The only remaining model was the Lorentzian one.

*Andy Wrote: So you're going to try to plug weaknesses in your argument with a personal put-down? Not here.

:::No, I brought it up because you make several statements in the page which are blatantly erroneous. First of all you argue that relativity is not based on evidence but assumptions, which is simply not true as we are discussing here, then you do not seem to understand why quantum non-locality does not violate relativity, and lastly you ignore the vast experimental evidence in support of it. Most notably the massive time dilation observed in muon particles. I can only guess based on this that you don't have enough background in physics.

*Andy Wrote: "Many read it in their youth. That makes the ''termination of reading the Bible'' by them all the more striking."

Well I was just reading it earlier today and last week as well.

*Andy Wrote: "Once people buy into relativity, they stop reading it. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. That speaks volumes about what relativity really is."

:::That sounds strikingly like the "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. I don't know where you got the idea that reading relativity as opposed to any other theory caused this, but the connection you are implying is absurd and baseless. Where is your statistical evidence that tells you that people who read about relativity as opposed to say plate tectonic theory or germ theory are more likely to not read their Bible's afterwards? This suggestion that there is a connection is simply quite ridiculous.

*Andy wrote: "The healing occurred instantaneously and, yes, that contradicts the assumption in relativity about no information traveling faster than the speed of light. There are no exceptions allowed by relativity. It's a real contradiction. It's a not a "sign" as described by the Bible if it is impossible."

:::It's not a contradiction of relativity if Jesus can operate outside of space-time. Relativity does not say anything about what goes on outside of space-time. You failed to address my suggestion of this possibility though.

*Andy Wrote "Maybe you have 95-year-old pack-a-day cigarette smokers there too, who have never been sick a day in their lives. Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types. Keep in mind that many of the promoters of the phony man-made global warming are physics professors."

:::Look I don't know what personal experiences you had at Harvard, but coming from my dept. these claims are down right bizarre:

::::"Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types."

:::Well I'm denying it for one. Listen, you keep spouting this off, but there is simply no basis for it. Relativists are no more liberal than quantum theorists, particle physicists, or those who study superconductors. I haven't the slightest notion where you got this idea.

*Andy Wrote: "The correlation is unmistakable. Perhaps both attract people who like to misuse science for liberal goals."

:::Andy, part of this whole discussion is WHETHER OR NOT relativity supports a liberal goal NOT IF. To say that the correlation is unmistakable because those who promote relativity are misusing science for liberal goals is begging the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy, and does not resolve anything.

*Andy Wrote: "Do you support classroom prayer then? A clear "yes" would suffice."

:::Ok YES, and FYI I was also homeschooled from 1st grade to 12th, voted for Bush in 04, write conservative editorials for my school paper nearly every week, and run the largest right-wing memetic engineering group on facebook.

*Andy Wrote: "So ... you're fine with promoting something that is misleading the "masses" and harming their lives, as long as you can say it is their fault, not yours."

:::1.)Ok look, first of all relativISM appeared for reasons entirely different than relativITY. Supporters of relativISM seized upon relativITY to lend credence to their view. However, relativism would both exist and flourish WITHOUT relativity. The relativism in today's society is not caused by relativity. Relativity is merely incidental to relativism.

:::2.) Secondly, just because something can cause people to go to a wrong conclusion does not make that thing wrong. Relativism is a wrong conclusion. Relativity in my theory is a right premise. Just because some people use a non sequiter argument to jump from one to the other does not make relativity wrong. You have to understand that relativity is true or false INDEPENDENT of whether or not it causes certain people who are ignorant of relativity to be adherents of moral relativism.

:::3.) With this in mind I will note you might consider certain scientific discoveries as what Leo Strauss would think of as "dangerous truths." There are currently several such theories that if taken the wrong way might tend one towards atheism which in turn could lead to moral relativism. As such I prefer them to be left to the scientific world and not popularized in such a way to undermine moral values, however that does not make them any less true or false. I do not personally think of relativity to be one of these, but if you do that's fine, just remember that just because something might have adverse effects to the untrained mind doesn't make it any less true or false in itself.

*Andy Wrote: "Johanan, I spend my time helping people. Relativity has not helped a single person in any way, ever. It's misled and hurt a lot of people. Relativity is the most unproductive theory ever embraced, and it's a complete dead-end."

:::That's not true. It's led (not misled) people to make great advances in astronomy, and it HAS been productive in keeping particle's alive in particle accelerators for far longer than would normally be allowed. Furthermore it is useful in keeping GPS satellites on time when they start to slip off by a few seconds every year: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html GPS recievers calculate for gravitational time dilation to keep on track. Lastly you can't tell me that this if it works will not be both very cool and very useful: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/timetravel-01a.html

*Andy Wrote: "I'm not going to waste more of my time on it, and I encourage you to open your mind and become more productive yourself."

:::Then explain muon time dilation without relativity. I'm highly skeptical that another explanation exists, but if you can find one by all means share it.

*Andy Wrote:"You don't seem to be much of a conservative either. Conservatives advance society in a productive way. Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite that wastes taxpayer money,
misleads well-intentioned students and pushes the masses toward relativism. Yet you're spending your time defending and promoting it.

:::This is circular reasoning Andy. You start with your conclusion: "Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite" and argue back that therefore I must not be a conservative because conservatives are productive. Remember we are still debating whether or not relativity is productive. You also haven't proved why it misleads well-intentioned students. You can't argue that funding LIGO is liberal because relativity is an unproductive theory and therefore LIGO will be unproductive.

:::In a few years you might be surprised at what LIGO will do. I for one would love a new way to map dark matter. It would be a very nice way to figure out if I am on the right track with my quantum gravity theory for one thing.

*Andy Wrote: "I'm moving on to more productive topics on this site, and hope you can do likewise."

:::Don't worry, I intend to put together and edit many political pages that I think you will like! ;)

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

==Request for References==
Andy, you've said several times that learning relativity causes people to stop reading the bible, and that specialists in relativity are more liberal than physics professors (who are more liberal than college professors overall). Do you have any sources for these claims? In my experience, people in physics are as conservative as other fields of science, and more so than biologists. Thanks in advance for the sources. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 13:22, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:You can see plenty of evidence on the talk pages here. In addition, I've seen at least one survey indicating that the level of atheism is higher among physicists than, say, mathematics, despite the close connection between the fields. There are also prominent, widely promoted physicists who describe themselves as atheists, such as Richard Feynman and Steven Weinberg, more so than in mathematics or other analogous fields.

:Spend some time in a physics department, as I have, and you won't doubt that belief in relativity and reading/discussing the Bible are inversely correlated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:: Could you link to the study you have referenced above, or give some information on it? Also, as you've pointed out, knowing one person who smoked into their seventies and didn't get cancer does not prove anything. Similarly, the anecdotal evidence on this talk page doesn't verify your claim. The evidence from the talk page seems to lean the other way- most of the editors seem to think that plenty of physicists who believe in relativity also read the Bible, but it is all anecdotal. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 08:12, 29 November 2009 (EST)

:: Yes, there are some physicists who are atheists, but what is the relation to relativity? Can you even show me one person who understands relativity and does not believe it? There are people who think that relativity might have to be modified to explain some anomaly, or people who propose such hypotheses such as this [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space]. But who denies the basics of relativity? I'll count people inside or outside physics departments, but not articles like this CP page that are filled with inaccuracies about what relativity is. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::The defense of relativity grows increasingly illogical. Now the promoters' test is whether there is "one person who understands relativity and does not believe it?"

:::OK, let's try that test out. The Koran is written in Arabic, and I can't name one person who understands it who does not believe it. Does that mean, per your logic, that it must therefore be true? All liberal theories rely on double standards, and you've just established one for your theory.

:::Note, by the way, that relativity is a mathematical system. It does not adapt to counterexamples any more than number theory could adapt to a revelation that 1+1 did not quite equal 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes, there are a lot of people understand the Koran and do not believe it. Eg, here is a leftist-atheist-evolutionist who read the Koran (altho probably an English translation). [http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/the-dangers-of-islam-wright-vs-hitchens/]
:::: I am not arguing that relativity is true. I am just arguing to correct the errors in this CP article. If relativity does not have counterexamples, then why does the article complain about discontinuties and logic problems? It can be mathematically proved that no such discontinuities or logic problems exist.
:::: You say that belief in relativity is correlated with various other beliefs, but you offer no support at all. I do deny those correlations. They are contrary to my experience, and contrary to common sense. Do you have some examples of right-wingers who say that relativity is entirely wrong? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:54, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::::I found nothing of value in your link, and certainly nothing claiming that anyone read the real Koran (in Arabic) and didn't believe it. You have a [[double standard]] for relativity.

:::::But if you're not arguing that relativity is true, then that point is moot. Relativity has many counterexamples, and it looks like we need an entry analogous to [[counterexamples to evolution]]. The Pioneer "anomaly", the more precise Mercury perihelion data, the discontinuity as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, the logical problem of an orthogonal force on relativistic mass, the lack of curvature in overall space as observed by measurements, the universe near the Big Bang, and I think even new data for the pulsar for which the sole Nobel Prize for relativity tends to disprove it. As if that weren't enough, the Bible contradicts relativity also. As to people who say relativity is false, there's a long list (such as Tom Bethell) but I've already demonstrated that argument to be fallacious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:23, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::::::"Relativity has many counterexamples, and it looks like we need an entry analogous to counterexamples to evolution."

::::::Cherry-picking the anomalous data points that don't fit into relativity, while ignoring the vast majority of the evidence which does confirm it is not scientific. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:: "You can see plenty of evidence on the talk pages here." I don't think that makes a good citation for an encyclopedia article. Do we have any citations to something more concrete and objective?

== A Word on Relativism ==

Despite implications made here relativism did not come into being or become popular due to relativity. The roots of modern popular relativism can be traced back to Freud and in particular a group of neo-Marxist intellectuals known as the "critical theorists" who combined Marx with Freud to argue that all morality was merely a construct to be "liberated" from:

http://mildcolonialboy.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/political-correctness-is-cultural-marxism-part-iii-speech-by-william-lind/

Basically they viewed all ideologies (even correct ones) as "oppressive." Therefore any correct moral system based on an objective ideology was "wrong" in their eyes. Thus no one moral system could be thought of as correct -hence relativism.

The critical theorists came over around WW2 to escape Germany and set up in the States. Here they then were the movers and shakers behind the counterculture of the 60's, which is where moral relativism comes from today.

Again it has nothing to do with relativity. It would have gone off on it's own with or without relativity.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:That overlooks what the leading British historian Paul Johnson says (he starts his book about the 20th century with a discussion of the theory of relativity, and how it led to increased relativism), that overlooks what the liberal law professor Laurence Tribe says (he wrote a law review article linking the theory of relativity to a call for more [[abortion]] "rights"), that overlooks what now-President [[Barack Obama]] did in allegedly helping with that article, and that downplays the dictionary dates for the terms:

::relativity (1834)
::relativism (1865), but its secondary meaning about moral relativity came later, I think, and its additional meaning is this: "relativity".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:42, 28 November 2009 (EST)

Jfrattz, I see that despite my admonition on your user talk page, you continue to engage in 90/10 bickering over relativity, with the same re-hashed points that you and countless others have brought up before. Go write a new article, or find one that could benefit from more information. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:43, 28 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-11-29T16:34:07Z

NgSmith: /* Request for References */

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

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

For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 1|Archive 1]], [[Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 2|Archive 2]]



== Jfraatz's comments ==

:: Andrew;

::Relativity predicts absurd physical discontinuities

::I've studied relativity in depth, and those paradoxes all have very neat resolutions once you account for the change in reference frame.

::"and it contradicts logic,"

::That doesn't follow. Relativity is based on two premises and follows very logically from them.

::"the evidence,"

::On the contrary:

::Special relativity:

::1. E=mc^2: nuclear power and the atomic bomb
2. Time dilation: The airplane experiments, and the time dilation of subatomic particle decay rates in a particle accelerator.
3.Mass increase: The exponential increase in energy required to get things fractionally closer to the speed of light.

::General relativity:

::1. Prediction of a non-static universe.
2. Gravity waves -detected by their combined perturbative effect to a the rotation of a neutron star
3. Gravitational microlensing.
4. Time dilation experiments conducted with skyscrapers
5. Red-shifting near gravitational sources.

::"and the Bible."

::That is a very bizarre claim. There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts relativity and it is about like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. I'm curious. Where did you get this idea?

::"The biggest promoters of relativity today are more liberal than the Democratic Party, and that's saying a lot."

::""First of all that's an ad hominem. Secondly it's not true. The physics department at my SECULAR university has a higher predominance of conservative and Christian people than any of the other sciences and much more so than the Marxist laden humanities departments.

::The professor who taught my relativity class -who happens to be the department expert on general relativity and quantum gravity- even invited us all to a talk after class once regarding the possibility of intelligent design of the physical constants. As it turns out this talk about intelligent design of the physical constants was given by a world famous physicist who happened to specialize in general relativity.

::"Promoting relativity causes a great deal of harm in how people view the world,"

::No, you're confusing relativity with relativism. The two are radically different. My other interest is in philosophy and the people in the philosophy dept. -many of whom are left-wing- laugh at the postmodernists who try to prove relativism with relativity.

::One is a physical theory based on constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames and the equivalence of physics in all reference frames. The other is a moral and epistemological theory that says that there are no absolutes. Special and general relativity are founded on absolutes. RelativiTY does not cause any harm. RelativiSM causes a lot of trouble. The two have nothing in common though save for a similar sounding name.

::"and has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars on fruitless projects like LIGO."

::LIGO, (which my university participates in -we do the supercomputer analysis of the data) has no results yet because they still need to make the instruments another order of magnitude stronger before they can get results.

::And LIGO is not a waste of money. Once they can detect gravity waves they will have a whole new way to study astronomy. The idea is to turn it into the gravity wave equivalent of a telescope. Instead of seeing the universe in light only we can see it in gravity waves as well. The advances in science accomplished by this are well worth the money put into them. A few million dollars is nothing compared to the billions the government wastes on social programs, and is a legitimate usage of money rather than money wasted on welfare programs. It's like funding NASA, you'd agree that manned moon landings are worth while right?

::":You've heard none of this before because liberals control universities and don't allow open discussion and debate about their pet theories."

::No I've heard them before, but the arguments made are easily debunked and are rather pseudoscientific in nature. Usually the people making them don't even understand the theory properly. And I have no idea where you get the idea that they would have a political agenda that needs relativity to support it. Once again relativity and relativism are two very different things. Einstein even once said that he though that the theory of relativity was a poor choice of names.

::"Perhaps you think man-made global warming is not a liberal theory either?"

::Where do you come off comparing the two? One is a derived science open to much biased interpretation and data manipulation, the other is experimentally validated every time we turn on a particle accelerator. In fact some of the experiments they do at these labs require relativity to work. If relativity is false then they could not be doing the experiments that they are doing.

::And no Newtonian Mechanics and Atomic theory are not liberal theories either.

::I'm awfully curious as to what motivated this anti-relativity view. Your implication that relativity is "liberal" in any sense is highly bizarre. Also why single out relavity rather than QM classical mechanics or electrodynamics?

--[[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

::::I would like to note that I have used a political analog of general relativity as a means to create a model for how to warp the political fabric with corporatism so as to correct the democratic failure causing abortion. By modifying the analog of an "economic status-debt" tensor one can leverage misbehaving abortive parents into proper behavior by using corporate leverage on the democratic process. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

Johanan, relativity is disproved by the Pioneer anomaly, for starters. The absurd discontinuities include what happens in the limit as velocity approaches the speed of light. The logical flaws include the defect of relativistic mass. Relativity has produced nothing of value, and certainly not the achievements you claim above. It's wasted hundreds of millions in taxpayer money and confused the minds of many.

Pick your very best argument and be concise if you have an open mind and want to discuss this. If your mind is closed and made up, then I recommend Wikipedia for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::First of all there are no absurd results when you reach relativistic velocities. Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed -unless you want to say that empirically observed measurements of such can not be so because they are illogical.

::MY BEST ARGUMENT: As a physics major I have done the Michelson-Morley experiment in my modern physics lab and seen the results with my own eyes. You can not tell me that relativity is based on assumptions rather than observations, as I have seen the very same observations that are the basis for relativity. Unless of course you are arguing that it can't be so and therefore my eyes must be deceiving me.

::QUESTIONS: 1.)How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?
::2.) You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this. Saying this is almost like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. In what way does it contradict the Bible?
::3.)You compared relativity to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). One is prone to much more interpretation than relativity and has been found to be based on fraudulent data. The effects of relativity by contrast empirically confirmed every time the particle accelerator at Fermilab turns on, and it is far more simple to observe and confirm than AGW. So my question is where do you come off comparing the two?

::COMMENTS: 1.)As someone who believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason. Despite your implication that relativity is a "liberal" theory I am no liberal and am therefore not so open-minded that my brains fall out. If something doesn't fit into objective a priori principles and empirical observation I have a hard time taking it seriously -I don't buy post-modernism or the idea that you can determine truth outside of objective means.
::2.)Relativists in physics are not particularly liberal. My special relativity professor who happens to be the dept. specialist on relativity and quantum gravity even invited us to a talk after class one day. The topic was on the possibility of the intelligent design of the physical constants -at a secular university no less. The talk itself was to be given by a prominent physicist who also happened to specialize in relativity. You can't tell me that an extremely liberal professor would be inviting his students to talks on the possibility of intelligent design.
::3.)RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM. I also happen to have a minor in philosophy, and relativism is not based on the same premises as relativity, nor does it have anything in common with relativity. The post-modernist sorts that try to prove the latter from the former are laughed at by philosophers of both left and right-wing stripes. You needn't worry about relativity causing relativism.
::4.)Gravity waves have already been confirmed by there effects on neutron star rotation. LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves but rather as a telescope to see the universe in a "gravitational spectrum" in the same way you would normally see it with light. This is why they are spending so much money on it and it is well worth the cost -even $1-2billion. It will revolutionize astronomy once they increase the sensitivity by another order of magnitude or so -they are very close now. If you want to slash spending, the social programs spend hundreds of times that. LIGO isn't the money sucker, welfare etc. is. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

: No, the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity. It barely has anything to do with relativity. How do you think that NASA is ever able to have any successful space missions, if all its theories of gravity have been disproved? There are no discontinuities or logical flaws. Relativistic mass was already being confirmed in 1901, just a couple of years after it was predicted. Do you have any reliable sources for any of what you say? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:13, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::You say, "the Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity." What do you think the "anomaly" is from, if not relativity?

::Perhaps you agree with Wikipedians, who admit that the data from the spacecraft is contrary to what is "predicted", but the Wikipedians refuse to admit that the contradicted theory is the theory of relativity![http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly] Maybe that omission fools some people, but it doesn't fool conservatives aware of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:28, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::Since when is relativity is a liberal theory? I have yet to see a good argument to this effect. [[User:jfraatz:Johanan Raatz]]

::: I was the one who told you about the Pioneer anomaly. Possible explanations are listed on the WP page. One possibility is a gravitational effect different from known theories (Newton and relativity). But what is your point? The WP page already says that. You are not addressing the errors in this article. The stuff about discontinuities, hypotheses, resistance, and quantum mechanics are all false. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:25, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::::The "point" is that Wikipedians (liberal wannabee scientists) won't state which theory is contradicted by the data. You're just guessing when you say "Newton and relativity."

::::This is like the feminists who won't use certain words, like "girl" or "gentlemanly". If confronted with a situation where no substitute works, a feminist will still find a way not to say the "forbidden" word. They'll congratulate a new mother on her baby girl by calling her a "baby woman"!

::::Try saying expressly on Wikipedia that the theory of relativity is contradicted by the Pioneer data and watch that be erased by its liberal editors. Do you think that is science, or logic?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:32, 25 November 2009 (EST)

::::: I am not guessing. Just read the WP page. It says, "The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviation ... slowing down slightly more than expected ... The anomaly has no universally accepted explanation." Possible explanations include "modification of the law of gravity." Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range. They are either both accurate or inaccurate. What more do you want? The article has links to modified gravity theories. What does this have to do with this CP relativity page? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:31, 25 November 2009 (EST)

:::::: You are guessing that "Newtonian and relativistic gravity are essentially the same in this range." I doubt they predict identical results for this Pioneer data. Does the Pioneer anomaly contradict only the theory of relativity, or Newtonian gravity also? Are the data closer to one theory than the other? If this were science, then the Wikipedia article would say. Of course, this isn't really science, and Wikipedians won't expressly admit the data conflicts with relativity. If you inserted mention of the theory of relativity into the Wikipedia page, then I bet it would be erased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:44, 26 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::I would expect that the results at that range would be in the margin of error for both theories. General relativity only starts to become significant in extreme gravitational fields and the earth does not have an extreme gravitational field.

:::::::As for Wikipedia covering up evidence regarding relativity to suit a liberal bias, let me make a comment about that. I happen to also be active on Wikipedia, and from my experience the kind of people that edit the science pages are not the same kind of people who generally edit the political/philosophy pages. I have noticed a great deal of political bias in the people who dominate the latter pages, but not at all the former. I really don't think they did is -if they did it at all- for political reasons. [[User:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

::::::::The results are not within the standard of error. You're in denial: the results contradict the theory of relativity. And Wikipedians will never allow that truth on their pages. The Wikipedians who edit the science paiges there are just as liberal as those who edit the other pages, and it's implausible to suggest otherwise. Check out the global warming pages on Wikipedia, for example, if you doubt this. (My response to your earlier comments are below).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::: The Pioneer anomaly is not known to contradict either relativity or Newtonian gravity. Contradicting gravity is just one of several possible explanations, and no one is accepted. If it contradicts one then it contradicts the other, as the two theories say the same for Pioneer data. The gravity on Pioneer is extremely weak, and far outside the range where relativity would make any difference. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:20, 27 November 2009 (EST)

== Reply to Johanan Raatz ==

Mr. Raatz said, "Relativistic mass is not a defect nor is it logically flawed ...."

:Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''. Predictably you will say you never thought or heard about this logical problem before, so please then comment on ''why'' you've never thought or heard about this logical flaw. By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades.

Mr. Raatz says his "best argument" is the "Michelson-Morley experiment."

:If that's your best argument, then this case is closed. That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.

Mr. Raatz asks, "How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?"

:What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.

Mr. Raatz says, "You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this."

:You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible. Why is that? The Bible sells 100 times more copies ''annually'' than books on the New York Times bestseller list, and is undeniably the most influential book in history (Newton attributed his insights to it), yet relativists don't read it. Do you? The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.

Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable.

Mr. Raatz says he "believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason" and "I am no liberal."

:Really? So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray? I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it.

Mr. Raatz says, "RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM."

:Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism. Check out the first few pages of the respected historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, where he links the "discovery" of relativity to the popularity of moral relativism that followed. He's studied history more than you have, I think.

Mr. Raatz wrote, "LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves ...."

:LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons. You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle. How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do? That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)

== Reply to Andrew Schlafly ==

*1.) :Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''.

The same relativistic mass is not observed in the reference frame orthogonal to the motion. However the total velocity between two objects can be calculated using the Pythagorean theorem in all 3 directions. This is the velocity which is used to calculate relativistic mass and other Lorentz transformations.

*2.) "By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades."

Yes because relativistic mass has been OBSERVED for decades.

*3.) If that's your best argument, then this case is closed. That experiment certainly does not prove relativity.

If the light had been traveling at different velocities as the Earth orbited the sun why then did I not see different interference patterns? In the experiment I indirectly observed the speed of light to be the same regardless of reference frame.

Question you have a background in law and engineering. Do you have a background in physics?

*4.)What is attributed to "time dilation" can be explained a variety of ways, with or without relativity.

Hmm, ok so there is another theory out there that explains why time slows down with respect to another reference frame, that is not relativity? I would very much like to hear about this theory.

*5.)Do you?

Yes I've read the Bible. And I find it insulting that you would assume otherwise.

*6.) You've never heard this because promoters of relativity virtually never read the Bible. Why is that?

Well are you going to tell me what this supposed contradiction is? I looked at the conservative words essay and I found "non-local" there. In the definition I found a reference to Jesus healing the sick kid from far away. If you mean to tell me that this violated relativity then you are wrong. First of all, such an action could have occurred at the speed of light and would have allowed for the kid to get better before his father returned home. Secondly Jesus being omnipotent has access to Hilbert space and therefore could operate outside of space-time.

*7.)The nearly 100% correlation between relativity and avoiding the Bible is striking and cannot be attributed to coincidence.

You clearly do not know my physics dept. then. Of all the science depts. this one has the highest number of Christians and conservatives than any of the others. In fact many of my friends (the same ones who study relativity) would read the Bible in the physics lounge. (and this was not isolated to the undergrads)

*8.)Mr. Raatz denies the high correlation between belief in relativity and man-made global warming, but this is undeniable.

That's not what I was asking. I was asking how one theory -relativity(independent of who believes it) is comparable to another -AGW (independent of those who believe it)

*9.)Really? So you support prayer in the classroom, as when everyone in the classroom wants to pray? I bet you don't, just as liberals oppose it.

Try me! You bet wrong. Prayer in schools is very good for the salutory effect it has on society. Read Irving Kristol.

*10.)Maybe not for you, but most people fooled by relativity become more accepting of relativism.

Yes that's because the masses are idiots. That's not relativities fault though. It should be noted that Einstein thought that the label of "relativity" for his theory was shoddy and that he wanted a better one. Unfortunately "relativity" stuck and as a result some idiots took it the wrong way. I can not do anything about this, but it does not imply that relativity is wrong.

*11.):LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons.

No gravity waves. Gravitons are far smaller and according to my personal model of quantum gravity do not exist as such. (well technically they "exist" in a sense, but that would be a bad way of thinking about how gravity is quantized)Gravitons are a shoddy way to describe the real phenomenon. Gravity waves are not the same as gravitons though.

*12.)"You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle.
In today's world that level of money is not a boondoggle. Social spending is a boondoggle, cap&trade is a boondoggle, and healthcare is a boondoggle, spending a little money on sciences is not a boondoggle. Look in comparison to other programs this is a pittance. It's like the liberals who complain that NASA is taking up too much money when it is only spending less than 10 bill a year compared to the 100's of billions eaten up by their social programs.

Besides I am a neoconservative and do not have exactly the same philosophy on government programs that other conservatives might. I mostly agree on opposing socialism in government programs, but that isn't the same thing as basic projects for the public good or for the advancement of science.

*13.)"How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do?"

Fair enough. I believe LIGO accepts donations as well.

*14.)That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.

Most people would like to revolutionize astronomy with the gravitational equivalent of the telescope wouldn't you agree?

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

P.S. if you really think I'm a liberal, look up my group MemeShock on facebook. You will see that I am most definitely not a liberal nor a leftist. Please stop making assumptions about me.

:'''REPLY''':

:1)Johanan wrote, "The same relativistic mass is not observed in the reference frame orthogonal to the motion."

::No one changed the reference frame. I said there is a force orthogonal to the high velocity that supposedly causes an increase in relativistic mass. Mass is a scalar, not a vector. Does that force have to contend with the relativistic mass as claimed? You even say that this has been observed, so the answer should be easy for you.

:3) Johanan wrote, "If the light had been traveling at different velocities as the Earth orbited the sun why then did I not see different interference patterns?"

::Michelson-Morley suggests that an ether does not exist, but it in no way proves the many claims of relativity.

: Johanan wrote, "Question you have a background in law and engineering. Do you have a background in physics?"

:: So you're going to try to plug weaknesses in your argument with a personal put-down? Not here.

: Johanan wrote, "Yes I've read the Bible."

:: Many read it in their youth. That makes the ''termination of reading the Bible'' by them all the more striking. I asked if you read the Bible (now). Once people buy into relativity, they stop reading it. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. That speaks volumes about what relativity really is.

:6) Johanan wrote, "Well are you going to tell me what this supposed contradiction is? I looked at the conservative words essay and I found "non-local" there. In the definition I found a reference to Jesus healing the sick kid from far away. If you mean to tell me that this violated relativity then you are wrong. First of all, such an action could have occurred at the speed of light and would have allowed for the kid to get better before his father returned home. Secondly Jesus being omnipotent has access to Hilbert space and therefore could operate outside of space-time."

::The healing occurred instantaneously and, yes, that contradicts the assumption in relativity about no information traveling faster than the speed of light. There are no exceptions allowed by relativity. It's a real contradiction. It's a not a "sign" as described by the Bible if it is impossible.

:7)Johanan wrote, "You clearly do not know my physics dept. then. Of all the science depts. this one has the highest number of Christians and conservatives than any of the others. In fact many of my friends (the same ones who study relativity) would read the Bible in the physics lounge. (and this was not isolated to the undergrads)

::Maybe you have 95-year-old pack-a-day cigarette smokers there too, who have never been sick a day in their lives. Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types. Keep in mind that many of the promoters of the phony man-made global warming are physics professors.

:8)Johanan wrote, "That's not what I was asking. I was asking how one theory -relativity(independent of who believes it) is comparable to another -AGW (independent of those who believe it)"

::The correlation is unmistakable. Perhaps both attract people who like to misuse science for liberal goals.

:9)Johanan wrote, "Prayer in schools is very good for the salutory effect it has on society. Read Irving Kristol."

::Do you support classroom prayer then? A clear "yes" would suffice.

:10)Johanan wrote, "... the masses are idiots. That's not relativities [sic] fault though. It should be noted that Einstein thought that the label of "relativity" for his theory was shoddy and that he wanted a better one. Unfortunately "relativity" stuck and as a result some idiots took it the wrong way. I can not do anything about this, but it does not imply that relativity is wrong."

::So ... you're fine with promoting something that is misleading the "masses" and harming their lives, as long as you can say it is their fault, not yours.

::Johanan, I spend my time helping people. Relativity has not helped a single person in any way, ever. It's misled and hurt a lot of people. Relativity is the most unproductive theory ever embraced, and it's a complete dead-end. I'm not going to waste more of my time on it, and I encourage you to open your mind and become more productive yourself.

:Johanan wrote, "P.S. if you really think I'm a liberal, look up my group MemeShock on facebook. You will see that I am most definitely not a liberal nor a leftist. Please stop making assumptions about me."

::You don't seem to be much of a conservative either. Conservatives advance society in a productive way. Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite that wastes taxpayer money, misleads well-intentioned students and pushes the masses toward relativism. Yet you're spending your time defending and promoting it. I'm moving on to more productive topics on this site, and hope you can do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)

:::It's not just an issue in the States; all over the world huge amounts of government (ie taxpayers') money is being spent promoting this theory. Why would governments spend so much on something that turns people away from the Bible? I think we all know the answer to that... [[User:TrondE|TrondE]] 23:08, 27 November 2009 (EST)

::::You're asking the wrong question TrondE. The question is "Does relativity turn people away from the Bible?" If you research relativity and relativism you'll discover that relativism only latches onto to relativity for incidental reasons. Furthermore the reasons for relativism's success exist for entirely different reasons. We'd have the 60's with or without Einstein. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:::'''REPLY'''::

*Andy Wrote: "I said there is a force orthogonal to the high velocity that supposedly causes an increase in relativistic mass. Mass is a scalar, not a vector. Does that force have to contend with the relativistic mass as claimed?"

:::Yes.

:::You don't measure only one component of the velocity when you are measuring the relative velocity. You combine them with the Pythagorean theorem. So there is no change in mass when you are in a reference frame orthogonal to the moving object than when you are in a reference frame paralel to it.

*Andy Wrote: Michelson-Morley suggests that an ether does not exist, but it in no way proves the many claims of relativity.

:::Actually it's the basis for the postulate that the c is the same in all reference frames. You wrongly claimed that this was an assumption, but it is based on experimental evidence.

:::If the ether does not exist than "c" does not have a preferred reference frame to be constant in. Thus instead it is constant in all reference frames.

:::To be fair there was a third model "ballistic theory" which suggested that the photons moved at speed c with respect to their emitters, but this was ruled out by observation. It led to several optical effects that were not seen in astronomical photographs, notably in observations of binary stars in which the light from the two stars could be measured in an interferometer. If it were correct, the light from the stars should cause fringe shifting due to the velocity of the stars being added to the speed of the light, but again, no such effect could be seen. The only remaining model was the Lorentzian one.

*Andy Wrote: So you're going to try to plug weaknesses in your argument with a personal put-down? Not here.

:::No, I brought it up because you make several statements in the page which are blatantly erroneous. First of all you argue that relativity is not based on evidence but assumptions, which is simply not true as we are discussing here, then you do not seem to understand why quantum non-locality does not violate relativity, and lastly you ignore the vast experimental evidence in support of it. Most notably the massive time dilation observed in muon particles. I can only guess based on this that you don't have enough background in physics.

*Andy Wrote: "Many read it in their youth. That makes the ''termination of reading the Bible'' by them all the more striking."

Well I was just reading it earlier today and last week as well.

*Andy Wrote: "Once people buy into relativity, they stop reading it. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. That speaks volumes about what relativity really is."

:::That sounds strikingly like the "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. I don't know where you got the idea that reading relativity as opposed to any other theory caused this, but the connection you are implying is absurd and baseless. Where is your statistical evidence that tells you that people who read about relativity as opposed to say plate tectonic theory or germ theory are more likely to not read their Bible's afterwards? This suggestion that there is a connection is simply quite ridiculous.

*Andy wrote: "The healing occurred instantaneously and, yes, that contradicts the assumption in relativity about no information traveling faster than the speed of light. There are no exceptions allowed by relativity. It's a real contradiction. It's a not a "sign" as described by the Bible if it is impossible."

:::It's not a contradiction of relativity if Jesus can operate outside of space-time. Relativity does not say anything about what goes on outside of space-time. You failed to address my suggestion of this possibility though.

*Andy Wrote "Maybe you have 95-year-old pack-a-day cigarette smokers there too, who have never been sick a day in their lives. Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types. Keep in mind that many of the promoters of the phony man-made global warming are physics professors."

:::Look I don't know what personal experiences you had at Harvard, but coming from my dept. these claims are down right bizarre:

::::"Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types."

:::Well I'm denying it for one. Listen, you keep spouting this off, but there is simply no basis for it. Relativists are no more liberal than quantum theorists, particle physicists, or those who study superconductors. I haven't the slightest notion where you got this idea.

*Andy Wrote: "The correlation is unmistakable. Perhaps both attract people who like to misuse science for liberal goals."

:::Andy, part of this whole discussion is WHETHER OR NOT relativity supports a liberal goal NOT IF. To say that the correlation is unmistakable because those who promote relativity are misusing science for liberal goals is begging the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy, and does not resolve anything.

*Andy Wrote: "Do you support classroom prayer then? A clear "yes" would suffice."

:::Ok YES, and FYI I was also homeschooled from 1st grade to 12th, voted for Bush in 04, write conservative editorials for my school paper nearly every week, and run the largest right-wing memetic engineering group on facebook.

*Andy Wrote: "So ... you're fine with promoting something that is misleading the "masses" and harming their lives, as long as you can say it is their fault, not yours."

:::1.)Ok look, first of all relativISM appeared for reasons entirely different than relativITY. Supporters of relativISM seized upon relativITY to lend credence to their view. However, relativism would both exist and flourish WITHOUT relativity. The relativism in today's society is not caused by relativity. Relativity is merely incidental to relativism.

:::2.) Secondly, just because something can cause people to go to a wrong conclusion does not make that thing wrong. Relativism is a wrong conclusion. Relativity in my theory is a right premise. Just because some people use a non sequiter argument to jump from one to the other does not make relativity wrong. You have to understand that relativity is true or false INDEPENDENT of whether or not it causes certain people who are ignorant of relativity to be adherents of moral relativism.

:::3.) With this in mind I will note you might consider certain scientific discoveries as what Leo Strauss would think of as "dangerous truths." There are currently several such theories that if taken the wrong way might tend one towards atheism which in turn could lead to moral relativism. As such I prefer them to be left to the scientific world and not popularized in such a way to undermine moral values, however that does not make them any less true or false. I do not personally think of relativity to be one of these, but if you do that's fine, just remember that just because something might have adverse effects to the untrained mind doesn't make it any less true or false in itself.

*Andy Wrote: "Johanan, I spend my time helping people. Relativity has not helped a single person in any way, ever. It's misled and hurt a lot of people. Relativity is the most unproductive theory ever embraced, and it's a complete dead-end."

:::That's not true. It's led (not misled) people to make great advances in astronomy, and it HAS been productive in keeping particle's alive in particle accelerators for far longer than would normally be allowed. Furthermore it is useful in keeping GPS satellites on time when they start to slip off by a few seconds every year: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html GPS recievers calculate for gravitational time dilation to keep on track. Lastly you can't tell me that this if it works will not be both very cool and very useful: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/timetravel-01a.html

*Andy Wrote: "I'm not going to waste more of my time on it, and I encourage you to open your mind and become more productive yourself."

:::Then explain muon time dilation without relativity. I'm highly skeptical that another explanation exists, but if you can find one by all means share it.

*Andy Wrote:"You don't seem to be much of a conservative either. Conservatives advance society in a productive way. Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite that wastes taxpayer money,
misleads well-intentioned students and pushes the masses toward relativism. Yet you're spending your time defending and promoting it.

:::This is circular reasoning Andy. You start with your conclusion: "Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite" and argue back that therefore I must not be a conservative because conservatives are productive. Remember we are still debating whether or not relativity is productive. You also haven't proved why it misleads well-intentioned students. You can't argue that funding LIGO is liberal because relativity is an unproductive theory and therefore LIGO will be unproductive.

:::In a few years you might be surprised at what LIGO will do. I for one would love a new way to map dark matter. It would be a very nice way to figure out if I am on the right track with my quantum gravity theory for one thing.

*Andy Wrote: "I'm moving on to more productive topics on this site, and hope you can do likewise."

:::Don't worry, I intend to put together and edit many political pages that I think you will like! ;)

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

==Request for References==
Andy, you've said several times that learning relativity causes people to stop reading the bible, and that specialists in relativity are more liberal than physics professors (who are more liberal than college professors overall). Do you have any sources for these claims? In my experience, people in physics are as conservative as other fields of science, and more so than biologists. Thanks in advance for the sources. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 13:22, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:You can see plenty of evidence on the talk pages here. In addition, I've seen at least one survey indicating that the level of atheism is higher among physicists than, say, mathematics, despite the close connection between the fields. There are also prominent, widely promoted physicists who describe themselves as atheists, such as Richard Feynman and Steven Weinberg, more so than in mathematics or other analogous fields.

:Spend some time in a physics department, as I have, and you won't doubt that belief in relativity and reading/discussing the Bible are inversely correlated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:: Could you link to the study you have referenced above, or give some information on it? Also, as you've pointed out, knowing one person who smoked into their seventies and didn't get cancer does not prove anything. Similarly, the anecdotal evidence on this talk page doesn't verify your claim. The evidence from the talk page seems to lean the other way- most of the editors seem to think that plenty of physicists who believe in relativity also read the Bible, but it is all anecdotal. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 08:12, 29 November 2009 (EST)

:: Yes, there are some physicists who are atheists, but what is the relation to relativity? Can you even show me one person who understands relativity and does not believe it? There are people who think that relativity might have to be modified to explain some anomaly, or people who propose such hypotheses such as this [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space]. But who denies the basics of relativity? I'll count people inside or outside physics departments, but not articles like this CP page that are filled with inaccuracies about what relativity is. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::The defense of relativity grows increasingly illogical. Now the promoters' test is whether there is "one person who understands relativity and does not believe it?"

:::OK, let's try that test out. The Koran is written in Arabic, and I can't name one person who understands it who does not believe it. Does that mean, per your logic, that it must therefore be true? All liberal theories rely on double standards, and you've just established one for your theory.

:::Note, by the way, that relativity is a mathematical system. It does not adapt to counterexamples any more than number theory could adapt to a revelation that 1+1 did not quite equal 2.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes, there are a lot of people understand the Koran and do not believe it. Eg, here is a leftist-atheist-evolutionist who read the Koran (altho probably an English translation). [http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/the-dangers-of-islam-wright-vs-hitchens/]
:::: I am not arguing that relativity is true. I am just arguing to correct the errors in this CP article. If relativity does not have counterexamples, then why does the article complain about discontinuties and logic problems? It can be mathematically proved that no such discontinuities or logic problems exist.
:::: You say that belief in relativity is correlated with various other beliefs, but you offer no support at all. I do deny those correlations. They are contrary to my experience, and contrary to common sense. Do you have some examples of right-wingers who say that relativity is entirely wrong? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:54, 28 November 2009 (EST)

:::::I found nothing of value in your link, and certainly nothing claiming that anyone read the real Koran (in Arabic) and didn't believe it. You have a [[double standard]] for relativity.

:::::But if you're not arguing that relativity is true, then that point is moot. Relativity has many counterexamples, and it looks like we need an entry analogous to [[counterexamples to evolution]]. The Pioneer "anomaly", the more precise Mercury perihelion data, the discontinuity as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, the logical problem of an orthogonal force on relativistic mass, the lack of curvature in overall space as observed by measurements, the universe near the Big Bang, and I think even new data for the pulsar for which the sole Nobel Prize for relativity tends to disprove it. As if that weren't enough, the Bible contradicts relativity also. As to people who say relativity is false, there's a long list (such as Tom Bethell) but I've already demonstrated that argument to be fallacious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:23, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::::::"Relativity has many counterexamples, and it looks like we need an entry analogous to counterexamples to evolution."

Cherry-picking the anomalous data points that don't fit into relativity, while ignoring the vast majority of the evidence which does confirm it is not scientific. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:: "You can see plenty of evidence on the talk pages here." I don't think that makes a good citation for an encyclopedia article. Do we have any citations to something more concrete and objective?

== A Word on Relativism ==

Despite implications made here relativism did not come into being or become popular due to relativity. The roots of modern popular relativism can be traced back to Freud and in particular a group of neo-Marxist intellectuals known as the "critical theorists" who combined Marx with Freud to argue that all morality was merely a construct to be "liberated" from:

http://mildcolonialboy.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/political-correctness-is-cultural-marxism-part-iii-speech-by-william-lind/

Basically they viewed all ideologies (even correct ones) as "oppressive." Therefore any correct moral system based on an objective ideology was "wrong" in their eyes. Thus no one moral system could be thought of as correct -hence relativism.

The critical theorists came over around WW2 to escape Germany and set up in the States. Here they then were the movers and shakers behind the counterculture of the 60's, which is where moral relativism comes from today.

Again it has nothing to do with relativity. It would have gone off on it's own with or without relativity.

[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

:That overlooks what the leading British historian Paul Johnson says (he starts his book about the 20th century with a discussion of the theory of relativity, and how it led to increased relativism), that overlooks what the liberal law professor Laurence Tribe says (he wrote a law review article linking the theory of relativity to a call for more [[abortion]] "rights"), that overlooks what now-President [[Barack Obama]] did in allegedly helping with that article, and that downplays the dictionary dates for the terms:

::relativity (1834)
::relativism (1865), but its secondary meaning about moral relativity came later, I think, and its additional meaning is this: "relativity".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:42, 28 November 2009 (EST)

Jfrattz, I see that despite my admonition on your user talk page, you continue to engage in 90/10 bickering over relativity, with the same re-hashed points that you and countless others have brought up before. Go write a new article, or find one that could benefit from more information. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:43, 28 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-11-19T22:52:40Z

NgSmith: /* Comments on Newtonian Mechanics */

== 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)

:You're right. I was rude, and I apologize.

:That said, you deleted my clearer explanation and obscured the fact that the nonsensical "relativistic mass" was taught and believed by physicists for more than a generation. E=mc2, which is still repeated and taught in Pavlovian manner by relativists, is simply false as a general equality. You also inserted non-scientific justification like "language" and "natural" that have no place in a matter of physical observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 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)

How can I address your point, when there's no way to know what IS your point?

Is your point "All evidence is against your view"? OK, dish it out. Just list the top 3 evidences showing that action at a distance is the only way possible for particles to interact.

My point is: the horrible paragraph in the Intro about non-locality and field theory, incorrectly implies field theory is defective. It is not. Field theory is the most successful theory in the history of science. Weinberg's statement about field theory not being "robust" cannot be assessed by the reader because "robust" is not defined in this context. Weinberg's speech was written in '79, his criticisms were resolved by later successes of QCD and QED, as Wilczek described. That paragraph should go. You're trashing relativity and field theory too. Why?

Write 3 sentences. Top 3 evidences that action at a distance is the only way for particles to interact.

--[[User:Cuddlytakun|Cuddlytakun]] 16:10, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

:How about ONE evidence, Cuddles? Like the evidence that you refused to go beyond talk and ''improve the articles''. Nothing happened at all by way of action of your part, either in this article, nor in [[Quantum field theory]], which definately needs improvement. Instead of action, all we get is gab from you. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:23, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

OK. I have significantly updated the page on [[Quantum field theory]]. EdPoor said the page needed writing, and Karajou asked me to make an improvement, so I rewrote it. Now I'm going to fix the last paragraph in the Intro, which trashes field theory. Here I'm going to explain and justify my rewrites, line by line.

"...which [Relativity] assume that time is an intrinsic part of space and assumes absolute locality." I have rewritten as "Unlike Newtonian mechanics, in which space and time intervals are each invariant as seen by all observers, in SR the only invariant quantity is a quadratic combination of space and time intervals (x2 - c t2)."

It does not make sense to say that in relativity "time is part of space", nor is space part of time. The theory is about a space-time continuum, not time as part of space! They're symmetric in the metric, but with different signs.

"The non-locality of quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics contradicts the theories of relativity" I have rewritten as "The (assumed) instantaneous transmission of Newtonian gravitational effects contradicts special relativity." This statement is more accurate.

What does it mean to say "Quantum mechanics is non-local"? Vague. Quantum wavefunctions are non-local, and in the event of quantum entanglement (correlation) the wavefunction is multi-particle. But this is not relevant to relativity because real particles (unlike virtual particles) cannot transmit info faster than light (light cone restriction conserves causality). No entanglement experiment (e.g. teleportation) can transmit info faster than light, in fact teleportation requires classical info transmission SLOWER than light, look it up.

The Copenhagen interpretation of the collapse of the wavefunction upon observation is non-local but it is an interpretation, and likewise, cannot transmit info faster than light.

'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."[6]'

I have rewritten as: 'In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle suggests that virtual particles can sometimes travel faster than the speed of light which would violate causality, but "[t]he only known way to resolve this tension involves introducing the idea of antiparticles."[6] Consequently, in 1928 Paul Dirac derived the Dirac equation, one of the first quantum mechanical equations compatible with special relativity, by which Dirac predicted the existence of antimatter. Four years later, antimatter (the positron) was discovered by Carl Anderson, as successfully predicted beforehand by relativistic quantum mechanics.'

This statement accurately reflects the facts that, first, some quantum mechanical equations are compatible with SR (e.g. Dirac equation, Klein-Gordon equation), and that Dirac's prediction of antimatter before its discovery was a SUCCESS for relativistic quantum mechanics, not a failure! Which is the point Wilczek was making in the citation from his Nobel speech: success, not failure.

"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."[7]" I have rewritten as "[[Quantum field theory]], a generalization of quantum mechanics, is fully compatible with special relativity but not with general relativity."

I have deleted the quote from Weinberg because it gives the inaccurate picture that there's something wrong with field theory. There isn't. The [[Quantum field theory]] article lists some of its many successes.

[[User:Cuddlytakun|Cuddlytakun]] 16:46, 22 June 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)

== Complex equations of relativity ==

What do you mean when you write that "Unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity consist of complex mathematical equations...". I believe that most people would consider Maxwell's equations complex...not to mention the equations found in quantum mechanics.

: Your quote is misleadingly incomplete, and Maxwell's equations do not describe an additional dimension.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:24, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Sorry if my abbreviated quotation was misleading. I wrote it that way because I perceived that this article was intending to state that the theories of relativity are more complex than other physical theories. Perhaps I misunderstood the intent. In either case, I agree that the relativity equations are complex, but other physical theories are just as complex.

::Maxwell's equations desribe electric and magnetic fields as a function of three spatial dimensions and time. Although descriptions of relativity may refer to time as the fourth dimension, the equations of relativity use only three spatial dimensions and incorporate time as a fourth MATHEMATICAL dimension (which does not mean that it is another spatial dimension).--[[User:RustyR|RustyR]] 13:06, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] bragged that he was only one of a few people who could understand relativity. Really, it's absurd for you to claim that the four-dimensional system of relativity is not more complex mathematically than most other physics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:35, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

== Quantum Field Theory/Changes to the Intro ==

The introduction currently contains false information- it asserts that relativity stands apart from the rest of physics, in that it relies on hypotheses and complex mathematics. All of physics relies on hypotheses and mathematics- for instance: Newtonian mechanics relies on the assumptions F=ma, objects at rest remain at rest, objects in motion remain in motion. Quantum mechanics relies on the Von Neumann postulates,etc.

Also, the mathematics of special relativity are really no more complicated then Newtonian mechancis, and less complicated then Maxwell's equations or quantum mechanics.

The introduction also asserts that quantum field theories are not entirely successful (in combining special relativity with quantum mechanics). This is blatantly not true-the standard model is the most successful theory we have, and it is a quantum field theory.

The last change I made was to the rewording of the assumptions of relativity in section 1. The constant speed of light cannot be reworded as nothing can travel faster then light- the latter follows from the former. The first is an assumption of the theory, the second a result of the theory (the difference between an axiom and a statement proven from the axiom).

Also, I think the paragraph about special relativity and Newtonian gravity being in conflict is an excellent opportunity to talk about the need for general relativity, so I would like to add something about that.

On a stylistic note, maybe the references to quantum mechanics should be grouped together in their own section, or their own article? Also, perhaps-we should include an "evidence for" section to contrast with the "evidence against"?--[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:38, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

: You've made a number of false assertions here. Newton expressly rejected relying on hypotheses. His physics is based on observation, in contrast with relativity, where mathematics was developed first and then data was sought to support it.

: Relativity relies on four-dimensional space; other physics does not. It was widely claimed for years that few could understand relativity, and Eddington even has a famous quotation to that effect.

: Quantum Field Theory is incomplete at best and incoherent at worst. Even one of the rare Nobel Prizes for it has an admission of incompleteness in the acceptance speech.

: Relativity is a liberal's fantasy, and Obama even supposedly helped with a paper drawing liberal conclusions from it. Too bad it's all assumption and little more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:35, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

Experiment has born relativity out time and time again. Michelson Morley, Ives-Stilwell, Pound-Rebka,Shapiro time delay, etc. The Tevatron has been confirming special relativity millions of times every second for years now.

Now, as to Newton- Newton made a famous statement about relying on hypothesis, that does not mean he didn't do it. I recommend his famous paper on prisms (http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/). He advanced a particulate model of light, etc. Newton did make hypothesis, and his physics relied on it. Again, F=ma, the existence of inertial frames, etc. Quantum mechanics rests on highly mathematical postulates (the Von Neumann postulates). At least relativity's postulates are about physics, not mathematics.

Now, when you discuss relativity, you are conflating special and general. General relativity requires a great deal of mathematics, and it is general relativity that Eddington's famous quote was about. Special relativity is much easier. Changing time from an evolution parameter (as in Newton) to a coordinate (relativity) does not complicate things much. Single variable calculus and a good knowledge of algebra is enough mathematics to come to grips with the field. Quantum mechanics and Maxwell's equations require a solid knowledge of vector calc.

Lastly, a quick perusal of the nobel prizes awarded to work on the Standard Model/Field Theories since 1965- 1965,1967,1968,1972,1979,1980,1982,1984,1988,1990,1995,1999,2004,2008. Its not rare at all, a bit better than 1/3 of the prizes. Further, claiming something doesn't make it so- quantum field theories are the most precisely tested theories in all of science. g-2 of the electron is the most precise measurement mankind has made, and it matches the theoretical calculation to 10 significant figures. What more could you ask of in a theory? --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 15:45, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

: Point 1: no experiment has confirmed either of the two basic assumptions of special relativity, or many of the claims that are mathematically derived from those assumptions.

: Point 2: you seem to think F=ma is a hypothesis rather than a definition of force. Regardless, your argument does not negate Newton's quote or affect any aspect of this entry.

: Point 3: we do consider special and general relativity to be part of the same overall theory, as most people do.

: Point 4: your reference to "significant figures" (the better term "significant digits") is plainly silly and meaningless. The string of dates for Nobel Prizes counts for even less. When the prize was genuinely given for quantum field theory, the recipient honestly acknowledged how inadequate the progress has been. I don't know of anyone who seriously disputes that.

: Look, we can cut through a ton of subterfuge if you would just address my last point, which you avoided: liberals like Obama (and you?) like relativity for its political ramifications. Suit yourself, but don't pretend it is based on physical observations rather than unproven assumptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:51, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

:: : I agree with WLink. It is just not true that the math of relativity was developed before the physics. Relativity does not rely on 4-dimensional space any more than quantum field theory. The first 2 paragraphs of the article (starting with "Unlike") are false in almost every detail.
:: The progress in quantum field theory has been huge. Who said it was inadequate? If so, I dispute that, and all those Nobel prizes dispute it.
:: What are the politics of relativity? Maybe you should spell that out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:08, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

:::: The politics driving relativity is self-evident: moral relativism, curvature of values, no fundamental frame of reference, no action at a distance, and an implicit denial of the arrow of time. Read the famous Tribe/Obama paper if you want detailed application to specific political issues, such as abortion.

:::: Name one productive advance made possible by the "huge" progress in quantum field theory. There aren't any.

:::: General relativity, which is the main component of relativity, certainly was developed before physical observations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:43, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

Point 1: Now you are essentially restating the problem of induction- it is a problem with ALL of science, not just relativity. Also, Michelson Morley DOES essentially test the constant speed of light postulate.

Point 2: As I said above, even if we take Newton as a special case, what about quantum mechanics, Electricity and magnetism, etc. All require assumptions! Even if Newton's quote were true, Newtonian science would be the exception, not the rule.

Point 3: Most people consider special and general relativity different, but related theories. They are usually taught in separate courses, and have different domains of usefulness (general relativity being a theory of gravity is used in gravitational problems. Special relativity being a theory of fast moving things is used in particle accelerators).

Point 4- the point about significant digits is not silly- quantum field theory makes the most precise/accurate prediction of any theory of all of science. Further, everyone of those Nobels I listed was given for an aspect of field theory.

As to your last point- reality is what reality is. Whether or not liberals can twist something to fit their ideology is irrelevant.

But, I give up. I wanted to add my expertise as a particle physicist to your educational resource. If you don't want what I have to offer, I have more productive things to do. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 19:12, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

: Point 1: No, the Morley experiment comes nowhere near confirming the postulate of relativity about the speed of light. And it's absurd to tar all of science with the sweeping, unproven assumptions on which relativity depends.

: Point 2: Your answer is unresponsive. Nothing else in physics depends so heavily on broad, far-fetched assumptions as relativity does.

: Point 3: Your answer is disproved by the name "general relativity" itself. It is the general theory, of which special relativity is a special case.

: Point 4: Your claim that something "makes the most precise/accurate prediction of any theory of all of science" is a familiar and silly assertion made by liberals. You haven't explained why that claim should be meaningful, and it isn't. High school-level electromagnetism can make ''completely'' precise predictions. If you think there is a striking insight made available by only quantum field theory, then let's hear it. But pretending it is great does not make it so.

: On your last point: you're plainly wrong in claiming that "[w]hether or not liberals can twist something to fit their ideology is irrelevant," because you studied in school what liberals like and haven't even heard with an open mind contrary viewpoints. If you received a good grade for the reciting liberal viewpoints, then it becomes even more difficult for you to reconsider.

: We want open-minded talent here. If you give up, then it is because your mind was made up. I urge you to open your mind more, but that's obviously up to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:43, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

:: No, relativity does not rest on assumptions or complex equations any more than any other theory of physics. It is not true that electromagnetism can make accurate predictions without relativity. Maxwell's theory is a relativistic theory. The origin of special relativity is in Maxwell's equations, not in any unconfirmed assumptions. I have pointed to 8 false and unsourced sentences in the article. Your comments make no sense. What do you think the Michelson-Morley experiment was measuring? Do you have some interpretation of it that differs from everyone who has ever written on the subject? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:34, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

::: You seem to be relying on some kind of fundamental distinction between special and general relativity. Special relativity is simply (as its name suggests) a special case of general relativity.

::: The Michelson-Morley experiment does not establish the assumption of relativity about the speed of light, or relativity's insistence that action-at-a-distance is impossible. We can edit the Michelson-Morley entry here if you want to get into the details of what it showed, and did not show.

::: Basic electrical circuits, like the kind in computers, are predicted perfectly by electromagnetics without any use of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

:::: Mathematically, special relativity is tangent to general relativity. I am just using common terminology. If you don't believe relativity, that is your business, but it is essential for all of physics in the last 150 years. And yes, it is needed to understand the electromagnetism used in computers. I suggest you find sources for your statements. I repeat, I count 8 false and unsourced sentences just in the first couple of paragraphs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:59, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

::::: The claim that relativity "is essential for all of physics in the last 150 years" is a standard over-the-top assertion of those who were fed it in school and have never reconsidered since. The truth is no one can cite a single achievement of value by the theory. For something supposedly so essential for 150 years, don't you find it odd that you cannot cite anything of value that has come from it???

:::::: I was just pointing out errors in the article, and not trying to start a discussion on "value". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:38, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity introduced the equivalence of mass and energy, and that explained the extraordinary kinetic energy of the products of radioactive decay and led to harnessing both nuclear power and the nuclear weapons which defeated Japan and maintained peace for sixty years. [[User:Linuxgal|Linuxgal]] 23:45, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Linuxgal's comment illustrates, perhaps innocently, one (of many) false claims promoted by relativists. In fact, relativity had nothing to do with the Manhattan Project.

:::::::: Here's a basic question that relativists should answer: have taxpayers recovered the hundreds of millions of dollars of their money that have been spent in pursuit of relativity claims, such as the futile search for gravitons? (Of course the answer is "no".)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:50, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::Sorry to butt in, but I'm wondering how relativity is at all linked to modern electronics. From my (admittedly limited) knowledge, quantum mechanics fundamentally underpins modern electronics (CPU design has to account for quantum tunneling, etc.), but the precepts of relativity are totally irrelevant at the microscopic scale. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:10, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::: No, relativity is not irrelevant. Magnetism is understood as a relativistic effect. The theories that make Maxwell, Dirac, and Feynman famous are all relativistic. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

::::::: It's true that relativity has nothing to do with modern electronics, that's actually explained by Quantum Electrodynamics, but Einstein opened that up with his paper on the photon, which was published in 1905 together with his first relativity paper, and people mash it all together (BTW I was the one posting as Linuxgal, I didn't know we had to use real names). Gravitons are not a relativity claim, it is an attempt to make gravity into a gauge field theory like electromagnetism and nuclear forces, which use bosons to mediate interactions between particles (and there's no evidence for it)...general relativity explains gravity as particles following a "geodesic" in the warped geometry of space-time [[User:RubyR|RubyR]] 09:47, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Relativity has produced nothing of value, and this discussion isn't doing any better. The replies above are unresponsive to my points, and historically incorrect. Are you saying that taxpayers should be forced to pay for this unproductive work? Do you donate to it? if your answer is "yes, no" then that speaks volumes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]

::::::::: RubyR/Linuxgal is incorrect. Quantum electrodynamics has everthing to do with relativity. QED was created to make quantum mechanics relativistic, and it is a fully relativistic theory. That is how we got the Dirac equation of the electron. Without relativity, there is no QED, and no understanding of modern electronics. However, QED has nothing to do with with Einstein's 1905 paper on the photon. Einstein proposed that light is transmitted as a particle, rather than a wave, but QED treats light transmission as a wave.
::::::::: Andy, this Talk page is for improving the article. I suggest fixing the errors, and let the reader decide for himself whether relativity is worth taxpayer support. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:01, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::: I'm all for correcting "falsehoods", but let's start with your own comments. You say, "Without relativity, there is no QED, and no understanding of modern electronics." That's just wrong, historically and logically. The inventors of the transistor at Bell Labs had probably never even taken a course in relativity, let alone used it. Relativity does not come up in the basic QM courses taught in college. Virtually no papers about electronics even mention relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:52, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::: The transistor inventors used Maxwells equations, a relativisitic theory. Yes, you can learn basic QM (eg, Heisenberg, Schodinger, von Neumann) theory without relativity, but you need relativity for QED (eg, Dirac, Feynman). There is no understanding of quantum fields, except using relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:24, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::: Maxwell's theory predates relativity by thirty years or more. It is Maxwell that informed Einstein, not the other way round. [[User:RubyR|RubyR]] 14:38, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::::: That's right, Maxwell predated Einstein by 30 years or so. Your point? Maxwell's equations are still relativistic, ie, invariant under the Lorentz group. Maxwell's equations are taught and understood today in terms of relativity. You can view special relativity as just a way of understanding Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:11, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: A relativist tries to view everything in terms of relativity ... including morality and values and an alleged impossibility of action-at-a-distance like what is described in the Bible. Next thing we'll be hearing relativists claim that Edison's work was relativistic too!

:::::::::::::: Ruby is right. Call relativity Maxwellian if you like, but not vice-versa.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: When I make the claim that relativity has nothing to do with electronics, it is to a first order approximation. NASA/JPL engineers fly their space probes all around the solar system with a high degree of accuracy without resorting to Einstein's relativistic corrections to Newton's basic theory. About the only place where relativity must be taken into account in electronics is the collating electromagnets at the CERN collider, where proton streams are accelerated to very close to the velocity of light. Otherwise the "slop" inherent in digital timing (you must wait for a signal to stabilize before accepting it as valid) buries the effects. [[User:RubyR|RubyR]] 16:35, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Magnetism is a relativistic effect. If you are using magnetism, you are using relativity. If you deny relativity, then what is magnetism? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:48, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: And what is morality? Look, there's no denying that relativists insist on applying their assumptions to anything and everything. Magnetism doesn't need relativity, and relativity hasn't produced a single thing that is productive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

This discussion has degenerated in Andy arguing points that are not in the article. I suggest fixing these errors:
:Unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity consist of complex mathematical equations relying on several hypotheses. - WRONG.
:These equations assume that it is forever impossible to attain a velocity faster than the speed of light, a hypothesis that can never be fully tested. - No, the equation show increased inertia as the speed of light is approached, something that has been experimentally verified for a century.
:By relying on assumptions about nature rather than observations, ... - No, SR relies essentially on electromagnetic observations.
:Relativity rejects Newton's action at a distance, which is basic to Newtonian gravity and quantum mechanics. - No, only to some interpretations of QM.
:The mathematics of relativity assume no exceptions, yet in the time period immediately following the origin of the universe the relativity equations could not possibly have been valid. - Nonsense. What is the source for this silly statement?

:Relativity has been met with much resistance in the scientific world. - No reputable physicist in the last century has failed to accept relativity.
:To date, a Nobel Prize has never been awarded for relativity. - Prize were given indirectly for relativity in 1902, 1921, 1933, 1993. Plus the QFT prizes already listed: 1965,1967,1968,1972,1979,1980,1982,1984,1988,1990,1995,1999,2004,2008
:Louis Essen, the man credited with determining the speed of light, wrote many fiery papers against it such as The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis.[5] - He is a kook.
:Relativity also gravely conflicts with quantum mechanics, and although theories like string theory and quantum field theory have attempted to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, neither has been entirely successful or proven. - No, there is no known conflict. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:56, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

:: That's quite a rant, ranging from calling someone a "kook" to insisting that everyone accepts something. See how your claims contradict each other?

:: The bottom line is this: stop wasting taxpayer money on this stuff. If you believe it so much, then donate your own money. But the grand sum of money donated by relativists to something they claim is so great is this: $0. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

::: I did not say anything about money donated by relativists, about morality. Do you want to address something that I did say? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:49, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

:::: Your objections are patently absurd. Taking your first objection, of course relativity relies entirely on sweeping assumptions, such as claiming that ''v'' can never, ever be faster than ''c'' and that there is no difference in frames of reference anywhere in the universe. No other area of physics relies so heavily on such far-fetched and unprovable assumptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

::::: That is like complaining that Newtonian physics assumes that energy is conserved. The statement about was observed by Michelson-Morley and others. If you want to call it an assumption, then it was also assumed by Newton in 1687 [[http://www.niu.edu/phil/~kapitan/newton1.shtml]]. Every other theory of science also has similar assumptions, if you want to call these assumptions. Relativity is no different. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:38, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::: I looked at your reference and found nothing relevant to this discussion, and you quoted nothing. In sum, relativity has yielded nothing productive, and neither is this discussion. Every minute spent on discussing relativity is a wasted minute, and every dollar spent is a wasted dollar. Relativity is based entirely on sweeping and implausible assumptions unlike any other theory of physics. Suit yourself if you like relativity, but you're wasting your time and please don't waste any more taxpayer dollars on it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:01, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

::::::: You complain that relativity is different from Newtonian physics, and then you fail to see the relevance of what Newton said about the principle of relativity. I give up. The CP relativity article is filled with errors. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:27, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

== Some clarifications I hope will be helpful ==

I signed up for a Conservapedia account after reading this article and talk page, and particularly the back-and-forth between Aschlafly and Rschlafly. I saw what appeared to me to be some points of confusion and miscommunication, and I thought I might be able to help clear them up.

First, on the GPS question, I ''think'' I see what Aschlafly is saying about clocks. I think he means that Newtonian dynamics predicts no change in time from one reference frame to another, but rather that the ''forces'' on an orbiting satellite may affect a ''clock'' on board that satellite, just like bumping a record player can cause it to skip.

This is a very astute observation, particularly given the minuteness of the observed desynchronization. The trouble is, it can't possibly be correct under Newtonian dynamics. The equivalence principle — the most basic Galilean one — says that a freely falling reference frame is indistinguishable from a reference frame which is not accelerating. So there are no forces acting on a clock in an orbiting satellite. (This is an approximation, obviously; tidal forces are at work inside an orbiting satellite. But on that scale, tidal forces are far too minute to have any measurable effect, much less an effect on the scale that's been observed.)

Now, maybe there's some as-yet-unknown force acting on the particular type of clock in a GPS satellite, causing it to desynchronize from ground-based clocks. A magnetic force, maybe, since those clocks are solid-state. We can easily imagine such a force, and define it in a way that matches the observations, just like Newton imagined a "gravitational force" that caused objects to fall in the way he observed. But physicists are (I think understandably) reluctant to do that, since the predictions of general and special relativity combined match the observed effects to the limit of our ability to measure.

It's not accurate at all to say that the desynchronization of GPS clocks ''proves'' either theory of relativity. What is accurate is that the two theories of relativity ''predict'' that orbiting clocks will differ from ground-based clocks in certain ways (slightly faster by a factor X because they're at a higher altitude, slightly slower by a separate factor Y because they're in motion) and that the observed behavior exactly matches the sum of the two predictions, to the limit of our ability to measure. GPS clocks don't ''prove'' relativity, but they also don't contradict it.

It's also more than a bit misleading to say that "relativity has yielded nothing productive," since we wouldn't have PET scans without it for one example. But I'm a theoretician, not an engineer, so I can't contribute too much on that front. I'm also unsure whether you'd consider something like astronomical redshift or gravitational lensing (allowing us to better observe the universe) to be "productive" or not.

I'm generally confused by what you're referring to when you say "sweeping and implausible assumptions." Maybe you're confusing assumptions with predictions. In special and general relativity combined there are only three postulates — things that are assumed to be true by the theory: that the laws of physics are fundamentally the same no matter where you are or how you're moving, that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same to all observers, and that spacetime is everywhere (mathematically) continuous and differentiable.

The third postulate boils down, in layman's terms, to "We assume that mathematics works in the real world." It's admittedly unfounded, but it's also a fundamental assumption of every other theory in physics as well. The second postulate started out as a bit of an assumption, but all experiments conducted to date have produced observations that are consistent with it. And the first postulate is another one of those fundamental assumptions of physics, that the basic laws of physics don't just change arbitrarily from place to place or from observer to observer. Only three assumptions, and none of them are either sweeping or implausible.

Also, I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding (okay, a big, huge, giant misunderstanding) about what E=mc2 means. That's okay, because most people who know what the letters in that equation stand for misunderstand what the equation means. That equation is ''nothing more than a unit conversion factor.'' You can convert from feet to inches by multiplying by a constant, twelve. If we define k to be 12, to keep from having to write the number down, then we could say I=kf, or inches equals feet times a constant. The mass-energy equation is just like that, a conversion factor for talking about energy (joules) in mass units (kilograms), or vice versa, just as we can talk about length in either feet or inches by applying a conversion factor. ''That's all it is.'' It doesn't ''say'' anything about the universe.

If you want to take issue with the mass-energy relation, you should turn your attention to the stress-energy tensor Tμν in the Einstein field equations. That's where the prediction is made that mass and energy are related on a fundamental level. If you want to argue that point, argue it there, not in the unit conversion equation, which doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

Finally (and I'm only stopping here because I don't want to be ridiculously verbose), it's not ''exactly'' correct to say that relativity "[claims] that v can never, ever be faster than c." That's ''sort of'' true, if you squint, but it's not exactly right. What special relativity ''predicts'' — not ''claims'' — is that if you start with any object the speed of which is less than the speed of light — say, me, sitting here — and you ''accelerate'' that object, then its velocity as measured in any reference frame will never reach the speed of light, no matter how ''hard'' you accelerate it nor for how long. That's a more accurate way to describe the prediction. In fact, from a purely abstract mathematical standpoint, the equations of special relativity kind of say the ''opposite'' of what you said. Because it's an equally valid mathematical solution to say that objects can exist which move ''faster'' than the speed of light, but that when they are ''negatively'' accelerated (i.e., decelerated) their speed will never be so ''slow'' as the speed of light. These types of masses are called "tachyons."

Of course, there are some serious mathematical problems with tachyons as a solution to the equations of special relativity. It's true that the math works, but it's also true to say that if I have three apples and you take away five I have negative-two apples. A mathematically correct statement, but one that doesn't have meaning in the real world, since you can't ''physically'' take away more than I have; "negative-two apples" doesn't have a real-world meaning, and tachyons might also not have a real-world meaning. Special relativity doesn't say they ''do'' exist, or that they ''must'' exist, merely that ''may'' exist without contradicting the theory.

I do apologize for writing at such length, but reading the exchange between Aschlafly and Rschlafly made me deeply sad. You two argued with such vehemence over points of misunderstanding that are really very simple. The coincidence in your names, and the possibility that you might be kin, just made it all the more sad to me. Perhaps it makes me a busybody, but seeing two people in conflict over such a trivial set of misunderstandings made me want to help. I hope you take my comments in that spirit. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 13:00, 11 November 2009 (EST)

: More to the point, the article falsely states that relativity ''assumes'' you can't exceed c, and thus that relativity is based on untestable assumptions. This is wrong. The speed limit may be a consequence of the theory, but it is not an assumption of the theory. The assumption is that light speed is the same in all reference frames, an assumption that can be and has been tested. Of course it can never be fully tested, but neither can simple motion formulas be tested at all velocities. Thus this criticism of relativity is based on false premises.

: As for the complexity of relativity, this isn't true for special relativity; that much can be derived with just a little bit of linear algebra. And so what if Eddington claimed to be one of the few people who understood it? Is he a source of infallible truth? Are we supposed to fill this encyclopedia with facts, or with stuff people say?

: This encyclopedia is supposed to be guided by conservative principles, including the telling of objective Truth even if the Truth is politically incorrect or offensive to sensitive ears. In this article we are seeing the complete derailing of that fundamental principle. The article barely even describes its own subject and devotes as much space to attacking it with numerous disparaging falsehoods; all because the fact of relativity is offensive to somebody's political sensibilities and/or personal hangups. --[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] 13:41, 11 November 2009 (EST)

:: There's much verbosity in the above two posts, and I'll gradually try to weed through it. Let me start by saying the obvious: the Lorenzian transformation at the heart of special relativity certainly DOES assume that "v" cannot exceed "c". The equation blows up if that assumption is violated.

::Now that I've addressed one of your points, how about addressing mine: relativity has absurd physical discontinuities, as explained in the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]

:::It's sometimes tricky to say what exactly are the "assumptions" in a theory, but I thnik I agree with NgSmith on this point. One can derive the Lorentz transformations by assuming that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames. Einstein himself wrote a neat short piece "Simple Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation" that does this, even if it's not entirely rigorous. It's available online and quite lives up to its name. Others have done a more careful job of deriving the transformations. You're right that the Lorentz transformations do show we can't go above c, but I think it's more accurate to view this as a consequence of the assumption (c constant in all frames) underlying Lorentz, rather than viewing the Lorentz transformations themselves as the assumption. But I understand this is all up to debate and really comes down to how we want to formalize the theory. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:40, 11 November 2009 (EST)

:::Regarding the complexity of relativity, yes. Relativity is mathematically complex. While it's true that a lot of special relativity can be handled with basic algebra, the geometric interpretation depends on a good understanding of hyperbolic trigonometry, which is reasonably advanced math. General relativity, of course, is based on differential geometry and tensor calculus, which are highly advanced subjects in math. They are mathematically challenging theories, no question.

:::I'm not sure that's a good criticism, though. I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong, of course, but the mere fact that there's a lot of math doesn't seem to be a strong leg to stand on. Math, after all, can be learned by anyone with patience.

:::(Just like posts with "much verbosity" can be read and understood by anyone with patience, but that's getting off the subject.)

:::On the topic of assumptions, I'm not sure what else to say that I didn't say above. Special relativity does not ''assume'' that ''v'' cannot equal or exceed ''c.'' It ''assumes'' that the measured speed of light in a vacuum is the same in all reference frames. It then goes on to ''predict'' that under acceleration ''v'' cannot reach ''c.'' I agree, that alone would be a very difficult prediction to test. Fortunately, special relativity also ''predicts'' that proper time in a moving reference frame runs slower than proper time at rest, in proportion to ''v,'' and that prediction is ''not'' difficult to test. We accelerate particles with known half-lives to high fractions of ''c'' and then observe how long it takes them to decay. After enough such tests, the relationship between proper time in the moving frame and proper time at rest can be measured with a high degree of statistical precision. (This is known as the Rossi-Hall experiment, and was first done in 1940.)

:::As for the other point about "absurd physical discontinuities" and the example given in the article — and believe me when I tell you I'm trying to say this as respectfully as I can — I'm afraid your math is simply flawed. The example given in the article is that if you take a massive particle, accelerate it to the limit c, ''and then also'' reduce its rest mass to the limit zero, you get a different momentum from that of a photon. At the risk of sounding pedantic, of course you do. Rest mass is not a variable in the equations of special relativity; it's not mathematically meaningful to take its value at a limit, because it's a constant. You could just as easily take the value of the gravitational constant ''G'' at the limit zero, but you wouldn't get physically meaningful results, because ''G'' does not vary. Saying that the equations break when you break the equations is, it seems to me, pretty tautological.--[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 17:18, 11 November 2009 (EST)

::: The Lorentz transformation at the heart of special relativity is ''not'' a starting assumption; it is a conclusion that is ''derived'' from the starting assumptions.

::: The article criticizes relativity for using the untestable speed limit as an ''assumption,'' which would be unwarranted. Rather, relativity is based on a different assumption, that the speed of light is frame-invariant. That assumption is perfectly justified; it is simply a statement of what experimental data was already telling us. Indeed, relativity was borne out of an attempt to ''explain'' that experimental data.

::: As for "absurd physical discontinuities," the supposed discontinuity listed in the article is the same for ''both'' relativity and Newtonian physics: the limit of mv as m goes to 0 and v goes to c is just 0, while the momentum of light is nonzero. But so what? A photon is not the ''limit'' of a shrinking mass, so this limit isn't supposed to equal the momentum of a photon. This is not a "discontinuity" in the laws of physics, simply a misleading mathematical argument. --[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

== Comments on Newtonian Mechanics ==

There are two aspects of Newtonian mechanics that are, I believe, misstated in this article.

One: several times the article claims that Newtonian mechanics predicts deflection of light by massive objects.

Newtonian physics did predict gravitational acceleration of light, ''back when light was thought to have mass, 200 years ago.'' But this "corpuscular" theory of light was abandoned long ago due to its false predictions, versus the growing evidence of light as a massless phenomenon. With massless light Newtonian mechanics does not predict any gravitational deflection at all.

It is misleading to represent that old theory, long since discredited, as "Newtonian mechanics," or to represent it as a present-day alternative to relativity. Newtonian mechanics does not model light as corpuscles, and does not claim that light is accelerated by gravity.

Two: the article makes fudge-factor statements like, "it is debatable how much deflection Newtonian mechanics should predict." No, it is not debatable at all: both Newtonian mechanics and relativity have well-defined, concrete laws that you can find in any physics textbook. There is no mystery or lingering uncertainty about what they say, and we know precisely what these laws predict about the path of a mass passing another mass.

It seems like the article is defending an incorrect prediction by arguing that the predicted value is still up for debate. But this is wrong; we know what the predicted value was, and should honestly accept that it does not match observation.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:Thanks for taking the time to find two specific areas for improvement here. This article was first on my list of those to improve — i.e., repair — when I signed up, but I've been working my way up to it because it's just so daunting. You've put the spotlight on a couple specific points, and that really helps.

:I'm in the middle of expanding [[general theory of relativity]] and won't finish it until tomorrow. Would you be interested in collaborating with me on this article? I think moving much of the detail of the special and general theories to their respective pages will help clear out some of the junk on this page. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 18:43, 13 November 2009 (EST)

: I thought that there were people who predicted light deflection under Newtonian mechanics. Is that not true? Do you have any source for saying that people did not expect light deflection under Newtonian mechanics? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:48, 15 November 2009 (EST)

:Absolutely. Johann Soldner, 1803, for one. I'm going to put that into the GR page. But probably not quite yet, there's a ''huge'' rewrite going on. I'm sure there were people who thought that the deflection under Newton should be zero, but they were just not thinking clearly. Any statement saying the expected deflection was zero should be taken out; not true. BTW, I think the detailed treatment of issues like this belongs in the GR page, and the R page should just link to it. [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 12:01, 15 November 2009 (EST)

::The sequence of events basically goes like this:

::*Light is like little cannonballs! (Pretty much everybody from the 11th c. forward.)

::*Gravity is a constant force! (In India and Arabia, 9th c. or so, in Europe, Galileo, early 17th c.)

::*Gravity varies with the square of the distance! (Newton, late 17th c.)

::*There are stars so heavy that light cannonballs from them are dragged back down! (Laplace et al., 18th c.)

::*Guys? Light's not cannonballs, it's vibration. So no on your gravity nonsense. (Various, late 17th c. through mid 19th c.)

::*Okay, you guys are both right. It's cannonballs that vibrate. Kind of. (Einstein, early 20th c.)

::*Oh, and gravity does so pull on it. So nyeh. (Einstein, early 20th c. but slightly later.)

::Basically the question of how light and gravity interact has been bounced back and forth like a ping-pong ball for the past thousand years. Only in the past century has a consistent model of light and gravitation emerged. Some discussion of this exists already [[black hole|here]]. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 12:20, 15 November 2009 (EST)

: RSchlafly, there were indeed people a couple centuries back who predicted light deflection under Newtonian mechanics. But this was only because 200 years ago, light was thought to have mass.

: Newtonian mechanics only predicts the deflection of an object's path if the object has mass. Lose the mass and you lose the deflection. For that reason Newtonian mechanics has not predicted the deflection of light for a very long time. Surprisingly, the article already cites a source, citation no. 32, that says this in so many words.

: It is thus incorrect for the article to state that Newtonian mechanics predicts deflection (or that the deflection of a mass's path is "up for debate.") It seems to me that both of these claims are made in order to argue that relativity isn't necessary, in keeping with the article's apparent negative attitude toward its subject matter.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:: That Ref 32 says, "Both Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity predict that the Sun will bend the starlight". It says that a massless particle would not have a Newtonian deflection, but does not say whether anyone thought that at the time. Newtonian gravity would predict a deflection in the limit as the mass tends to zero. So I think that you are contradicting yourself with these comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:16, 17 November 2009 (EST)

::: But what does the limit have to do with anything? Universal gravitation predicts a pull on any mass, even as the mass goes to zero. But at zero, there is simply no pull, and the formula says this explicitly: F=GMm/r*r. Everything else follows from this law. It doesn't matter that all masses are deflected as the mass goes to zero: once you hit zero, no mass equals no force equals no acceleration equals no orbit.

::: One cannot make a limiting argument here, or rather that argument doesn't imply anything. The laws of physics are not required to give the same answer in the limit. This is what Andy Schlafly has referred to above as a "discontinuity."

::: You are correct that the reference is not specific about whether people thought this ''at the time,'' but what matters is what people think ''now''. To truthfully say that Newtonian mechanics predicts the deflection of light, that has to be the state of the theory today, and it isn't. We could truthfully write that Newtonian mechanics did predict the acceleration and hence deflection of light centuries ago, but that has long since been abandoned---not the least because if masses accelerated light, we'd see light zipping by at many different speeds.

::: Finally, you will observe that while people differed in ages past on whether there ''was'' Newtonian deflection, none of those cites show any debate or disagreement over the ''magnitude'' of it. The predicted deflection is either zero (today) or 2GM/rcc; there are no varying interpretations of physics that resulted in 1.5GM or 3GM or 4GM or 1.1GM. Yet this seems to be what the article is implying, in defense of the Newtonian prediction being wrong. --[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::: What people think now is that Newtonian theory predict deflection of light. That is what all the sources say, and I don't know why you would say anything else. People now say that light has mass, that Newtonian gravity attracts light, and that light is deflected. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:59, 17 November 2009 (EST)

::::: People now say that light has mass? Who says that?

::::: No, the mass of a photon is zero, and so says every contemporary source I can find. Can we dig up a single textbook from the last 100 years, or in fact any reputable source, that asserts that a photon has mass?

::::: It is overwhelmingly clear that "what people now think now" is that light is massless, which therefore incurs no deflection under Newtonian gravitation. Indeed, we have long known that the speed of light is constant, and that alone contradicts the idea that gravity can accelerate or attract light; if that was true, then light from each star would be traveling at a different speed when it hit us, depending on the star's distance and mass.

::::: Granted, people might look at the equations for mass deflection, observe that the deflection is the same regardless of mass, and suspect that deflection may also hold for m=0, i.e. massless light. But while we may ''suspect'' that, the equations don't directly ''predict'' it. There is no equation in Newtonian mechanics that predicts a gravitational pull on an object of mass 0. --[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

:::::: The ''rest mass'' of the photon is zero. The photon is not at rest, and does respond to Newtonian gravity. If you think otherwise, then I suggest that you find some sources. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:14, 18 November 2009 (EST)

::::::: In Newtonian mechanics, "rest mass" is the only mass there is. Newtonian mechanics ''does not predict an increase of gravitational mass with velocity.'' Thus for a photon, the "m" in "F=GMm/rr" is unavoidably zero.

::::::: In relativity, an object's kinetic energy as well as its rest mass can contribute to space-time curvature, i.e. gravitation. But that simply isn't Newtonian mechanics anymore. If you start making relativistic arguments to put a nonzero value in GMm/rr, you may end up predicting deflection of light; but it is still wrong to say that ''Newtonian mechanics'' is making this prediction.

::::::: I must stress again that both relativity and Newtonian mechanics have very well-defined laws that are well understood. In Newtonian mechanics, you simply can't have a nonzero gravitational pull on a massless object. The law of universal gravitation is painfully clear on this point.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

::::::: Photons are not at rest. Photons do have inertia. You say that the Newtonian mechanics prediction is not correct, but it is a historical fact that Newtonian mechanics did make that prediction. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:20, 19 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::: You are absolutely correct that "Newtonian mechanics did make that prediction." It did, in the past tense, 200 years ago when light was thought to be corpuscular.

:::::::: But the article doesn't say that it ''did,'' once, predict this; it falsely says that it ''does,'' in the present tense, predict the deflection of light. Note that this is not a change in Newtonian mechanics itself, but the assumption of what light is.

:::::::: Likewise, scientists ''did'' think that light passed through an ether; it would be false to say that they think this now.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

Talk:Pi

2009-11-19T03:23:29Z

NgSmith: /* I do not like the "Pi in the Bible" section... */

Answering the question posed in the article, "As of 2002, the record is held by Yasumasa Kanada of Tokyo University at 1,241,100,000,000 digits. That result was never printed out: can you figure out why not?"

An ordinary printed page can hold about 5,000 digits.

To print 1,241,100,000,000 digits would require 248,220,000 pages, or 496,440 reams of paper. A ream of paper is the size of a large book. It would take a building the size of a city library to hold the printed output. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 23:08, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Counting the letters in the phrase "Now I wish I had a drink—alcoholic, of course" '''Does not help because it gives a wrong answer.''' it gives 3(.)141315926, it should be 3.1415926...
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:54, 15 January 2007 (EST)

*Yikes! I'm going to have to turn in my geek badge. It should be "How I want a drink--alcoholic of course." I was mixing it with "How I wish I could recollect pi easily today." Sorry. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:16, 16 January 2007 (EST)

So I'm assuming by the change back to the old version, my revision was no good. An explanation why would be nice, though. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 21:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Groan==

What was I thinking here? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pi&curid=4960&diff=71562&oldid=71280&rcid=74105]

113 '''divided into''' 355 like this:

3.14156.....
---------
113|355.00000

I had 1/pi by mistake - not even an approximation, more like an abomination. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== I like Pi ==

Pi R Squared? No they're not, Pie are round. Brownies are square. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:LOL. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:08, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

==22/7==
Besides the fact that "Pi is exactly 3!", 22/7 is also a repeating decimal.
Pi is also known as Archimedes' constant, Ludolphine, and Ludolph's Number.
Ludolph van Ceulen (Germany) spent a great deal of time calculating digits of pi. The number is engraved on his tombstone. If I were to get buried, I would have all the digits I memorized engraved on it, but I want to get cremated instead. [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 10:16, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:It is not true that Pi is exactly 3. What is your suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:31, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

::I haven't said anything about my beliefs, let's just leave my life out of this, eh? And, with you saying that pi=3, are you suggesting CP completely rewrites this article? [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 10:39, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::If you are not claiming that pi = 3, then that makes two of us. :-)
:::I've made a few updates to the article, primarily about scriptural references and historical estimates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:41, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

==Is the Bible wrong about pi?==

In the ancient world, measurements were not given as exact as they are today, and that was generally considered acceptable.
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/piwrong.html [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Who said it was wrong? Sloppy ancients aren't nessecarily wrong ancients. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::So, can I reinsert the Bibical perspective? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::It's not relevant simply to note that the Bible happens to approximate it in passing. However, many use it as an argument to show that the Bible is errant, and that's what I surmise may have been the purpose for its inclusion [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:35, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Wait. The Bible's interpretation of Pi is not relevant to Pi? What? Look, friend, the Bible is always relevant. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::You admit you're an atheist on your user page. Why are you so interested in inserting this in there? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::I admit I'm an atheist-- You say it like it's a bad thing. I'm not trying to stat a fight, Dan, I just figure that, as a wiki with a majority of users that are Christian, it would be good to include the Biblical perspective on matters where it has spoken, as is done in [[shrimp]]. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:18, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:I didn't realize that was still in [[shrimp]]. Anyways, as the article posted above explains, the numbers were not meant to be exact, and the circumference and diameter may have been given as approximate estimates, but pi wasn't a concept that most people knew about or cared about. The Bible wasn't meaning to comment on pi at that point, only at the relevant calculations. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:24, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::That's great, Dan. You seem pretty hostile to the Bible. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't see how Dan seems to be "pretty hostile to the Bible". Your insertion was simply wrong, as the Bible is not trying to give a value for pi at all. Besides, the Bible reference which is frequently quoted by bibliosceptics as supposedly representing pi is already in the article, and even that warrants being removed (in that form) in my opinion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Oh... So anything a skeptic quotes must be purged, then? What is the purpose of the verse if not to show the value of pi? Furthermore, how do you know what the Bible is and is not trying to say, Philip? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:48, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Also, bibliosceptics is A: Spelled wrong and B: a word which would translate as "Skeptical of books." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:49, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, bugger. It seems I didn't notice that the verse was already quoted in the History section. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::: I didn't say that anything a sceptic quotes should be purged.
::: What's the purpose if not to show the value of pi? To ''describe the object's size'', genius!
::: What is incorrect about the spelling of "bibliosceptics"? Yes, the word ''could'' mean "sceptical of books", but as "Bible" means "book", it's appropriate to use it to mean "sceptical of the Bible".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::"Besides, the Bible reference which is frequently quoted by bibliosceptics as supposedly representing pi is already in the article, and even that warrants being removed (in that form) in my opinion." That's exactly what you said, Philip!
::::Then why not describe it ''correctly''?
::::Skeptics. With a K. Also: Yes. I know it means book. Your use of faux Latin does not make you smarter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: That quote of mine does not indicate that ''anything'' a sceptic quotes should be purged, and neither does it say that that bit should be removed ''because it's something a sceptic quotes''.
::::: Aussies traditionally spell "sceptic" with a "c", hence my use of "bibliosceptic" rather than "biblioskeptic".
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

A fourth consecutive edit, because a thought occurs. How can we be sure that man's measurements are correct in this case but the Bible is not? Furthermore, if the Bible is wrong here, how can we logically accept that everything else is exact-- IE, the age of the Earth? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:56, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
: What reason is there to think that the Bible's measurements are incorrect? The logic of your question is valid, but the premise (that the Bible is incorrect) is not. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:05, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::Well, if it's ten cubits from one side to the other, it should be 31 all around, if we're rounding. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: What if it was actually 9.7 cubits (rounded to 10) from one side to the other? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Then the measurement given is, quite simply, wrong. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:44, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: Huh? Okay, I'll have to spell it out for you. If (and this is not the only possible explanation) the ''actual'' diameter was 9.7 cubits, then the ''actual'' radius would be 30.47 cubits. If ''both'' of those figures are rounded to the nearest cubit, then the diameter would be listed as 10 cubits and the circumference would be listed as 30 cubits. And guess what! That's what the Bible lists them as! So if this is correct (and it doesn't have to be exactly that: it could be 9.6 cubits for example), then the Bible is perfectly accurate! ("Accurate" is a different thing to "precise", as Ed mentions below.) If you still aren't convinced, have a look at the links in the External Links section of the article, particularly the Math Forum one. In fact, don't reply here unless you first read the three links. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:03, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::Yes. Rounding. I get it. It's impercise. If I say Ed is six feet tall, I'm wrong because he's not. If I say he's ''about'' six feet tall, I'm right, because he's just over six feet tall. Is that so hard to understand, Philip? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:06, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Alright. Scanned through the links. I get it-- God couldn't be arsed to tell the lowly Earthers a more prescise number. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:51, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: You've earned yourself another block for that arrogant response.
::::::::: If Ed is 6 feet, 3.02 inches tall, would you refer to him as "about 6'3" tall"? The articles said nothing about God not telling us a more precise number. The first link points out that their measurements would not be that precise to start with. In this case, they are not rounding, but simply measuring with a course measuring device. The second reference pointed out that it was common to round numbers in those times. Insisting on using the word "about" is really a case of you expecting people from 3000 years ago to follow your conventions. It doesn't mean that they got anything wrong. The third reference pointed out the following:
:::::::::* "''...in the absence of an explicit indication of precision, the absence of a tenths digit implies that the figure is accurate to the nearest 1 cubit...''". So the measurements were accurate to within the implied level of precision!
:::::::::* "''Every measurement we ever make is an approximation.''". So do you preface ''every'' measurement with "about"? (That's the point of my question above about Ed being 6'3.02" tall.) Absence of the word "about" does ''not'' mean that the measurement is "wrong".
::::::::: You acknowledged none of those points in your response, instead making a silly comment about God. It's clear that you simply want to argue a point that has been thoroughly refuted, and you've stopped doing so civilly. Hence your block. Learn from it.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:55, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::You're not wrong to call me six feet tall; I don't mind losing 3 inches in the interest of smooth prose. Just don't call me [[Metric to English conversions|two meters]] tall! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::That's what the "about" is for-- it indicates impercision. Most useful article ever, by the way. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:59, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I took a few science courses in high school and college. You might be interested to learn about the difference between "[[accuracy]]" and "[[precision]]". (I probably should compare and contrast the two ideas in a proposed new article: [[accuracy and precision]].)

:::Here's how it's relevant to [[Pi]]. When the Bible says ten cubits, that is an approximation. Scientists would say the measurement is being given to "[[one significant figure]]". It really could be anything between 9 and 11 cubits, and it still wouldn't be wrong, because it's only an approximation, like saying that Ed Poor is six feet tall (I'm 6'3" in bare feet).

:::The ratio between the diameter of a wheel and its circumference is, roughly, three. And if you drew a circle on the ground, with a diameter of 10 cubits, you would pace off 30 cubits when you walked around the circle. [[Pacing]] is not a very precise measurement, but it's good enough for some cases. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:01, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: "''It really could be anything between 9 and 11 cubits...''": 9.5 and 10.5 actually. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:06, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Anyway, you're being too patient with a time-waster. Liberals l-o-v-e to change the subject, with distractions like the supposedly preferable spelling of sceptic. I'm sceptical of this fella's motives, and I've left a note at his talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:13, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: I would actually like him to answer my last question above, though. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::Ed: You'll get a response in the appropriate place momentarily, don't worry.
:::::Philip J. Rayment: So you have wished it, so it shall be. Response is above. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:44, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

The Bible does not provide a value for pi, so the following statement is misleading at best:

:The [[Qur'an]] also defines Pi as 3.(al-Sûra ''aleph bei'').

Use of the word "also" implies that the Bible has provided a definition. The story about the ten cubits does not define pi. It merely gives a diameter and a radius of something presumed to be circular. (A circumference of thirty is consistent with a diameter of ten, with a precision of one [[significant digit]].)

In any case, I'd like to see the exact words of an English translation of any Koran passage related to circle math before approving any claim as damaging as "defines Pi as 3." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:53, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:Over the years, I've found this to be one of the sillier arguments against the Bible. I've found that those who push it don't believe it, but only do so to try to force in a 'gotcha' that they themselves know isn't the case, but nevertheless they draw enjoyment from trying to act like it is anyway. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:48, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

==I do not like the "Pi in the Bible" section...==
...for many reasons. First, the title is misleading, as the text points out. There is no pi in the Bible (only unleaven bread--just kidding!), nor does the Bible make any attempt to define pi or ''e'' or or any other mathematical or physical constant. Second, I think the subject is out of place in an article about mathematics. Perhaps it should be a minor section in an apologetics-related article. Or be omitted entirely, as it is not really a serious criticism, but more a "baby apologetics" thing that appeals to unsophisticated Bible skeptics.

Thirdly, while I appreciate that someone has done the work of gathering the arguments in one place, the wording could be better. It says "Critics claim this, but they are making the following assumptions". Better to say "Critics say this but they are wrong for these reasons." You do not know what someone else's assumptions are.

Fourthly, a minor point. If you opt to keep this section, you might point out that when critics complain that the Bible rounds the circumference to a multiple of ten instead of something more precise (say, 31.4 cubits), they are being inconsistent, because that number is also imprecise. Because pi is irrational, there is no number that could be contained (in a finite Bible) that could give the measurement exactly. What the baby skeptics are doing here is setting an impossible condition for precision, then saying that if the Bible is imprecise it is not inerrant (another big leap in logic), and hoping that no one will notice the flaws in their reasoning.

{{unsigned|Ga ohoyt}}

:I wasn't happy with the title either (and I wrote it!), but I wasn't sure what else to have. The next best think I could think of was to put pi in quote marks: "Pi" in the Bible.
: I don't think the article is particularly out of place. The article is about pi specifically (not just "mathematics"), and this section is about pi, or at least about a claim made about pi. It is not a serious criticism in the sense of having even a shred of validity, but it is something that is ''often'' claimed by bible critics. The Skeptics Annotated Bible mentions it, for example.
: As for the mention of assumptions, no, you don't need to know what assumptions they are consciously making; there are certain assumptions ''inherent'' in the argument, which is all that the comment is saying. That is, they ''must be'' making these assumptions, even if subconsciously. That's not to say that the wording can't be altered to something better, but I do think it's acceptable as it is.
: There were a couple of other problems with the claim that I thought of mentioning, but the section was large enough already and the others were in a sense variations on the ones already mentioned, so I thought that was enough. Yes, they often claim that the value is "incorrect", but then are unable to give the "correct" value themselves (because it has an infinite number of digits). And that would be a good thing to point out if the Bible was actually claiming to give a value for pi, but as it's not, it seemed a little bit unnecessary.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:48, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Better now? [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 20:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not sure (but I don't think it's worse). I don't think it's appropriate to have a question for a heading, and neither do I think it's appropriate for the heading to be part of the flow of the text, as is now the case, because the first sentence of the section doesn't make sense without the heading. A heading should give an idea of what the section is about, not be part of the section, if you're following me. Also, the claim is not (normally) explicitly made that the Bible defines pi, as indicated by the heading. Rather, that claim is ''implicit'' in the ''explicit'' claim that the Bible has an incorrect value for pi. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:19, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

I think the section is necessary because we ''do'' periodically hear this canard about Pi, and the encyclopedia should give the reader the information he needs to respond to it. However, I think the article's response is insufficiently dismissive.

I would simply say that the numbers in the Biblical passage ''are'' correct, to their given precision. Hence there is no controversy. Likewise, if an encyclopedia gives the radius and circumference of the Earth to the nearest thousand feet, the encyclopedia is not "wrong about Pi," and nobody would seriously say it was. It seems that only in the case of the Bible are critics so impassioned as to buy such a dopey argument.

Also, I think it is too weak to say it was "common at the time to round numbers." It is common ''all the time'' to give measurements like this, and to do so without any conscious or explicit rounding. The way these bullet points are worded, they give the impression that the values D=10 and C=30 need to be explained by some hypothetical act: maybe someone rounded a measurement, maybe they measured different parts of the rim, etc. But D=10 and C=30 does not need any of these explanations because, as I said, they are correct to their given precision, and there is no discrepancy that needs to be explained. I'd just remove them, lest they contribute to the sense of false controversy.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]

== Question on the Bible reference ==

Were decimals and fractions even in use in the Holy Land at the time 1 Kings was written? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:26, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
: Decimals, no, I think. Fractions, yes, to some extent, I think. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:39, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Pi

2009-11-19T03:22:46Z

NgSmith: /* I do not like the "Pi in the Bible" section... */

Answering the question posed in the article, "As of 2002, the record is held by Yasumasa Kanada of Tokyo University at 1,241,100,000,000 digits. That result was never printed out: can you figure out why not?"

An ordinary printed page can hold about 5,000 digits.

To print 1,241,100,000,000 digits would require 248,220,000 pages, or 496,440 reams of paper. A ream of paper is the size of a large book. It would take a building the size of a city library to hold the printed output. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 23:08, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Counting the letters in the phrase "Now I wish I had a drink—alcoholic, of course" '''Does not help because it gives a wrong answer.''' it gives 3(.)141315926, it should be 3.1415926...
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:54, 15 January 2007 (EST)

*Yikes! I'm going to have to turn in my geek badge. It should be "How I want a drink--alcoholic of course." I was mixing it with "How I wish I could recollect pi easily today." Sorry. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:16, 16 January 2007 (EST)

So I'm assuming by the change back to the old version, my revision was no good. An explanation why would be nice, though. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 21:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Groan==

What was I thinking here? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pi&curid=4960&diff=71562&oldid=71280&rcid=74105]

113 '''divided into''' 355 like this:

3.14156.....
---------
113|355.00000

I had 1/pi by mistake - not even an approximation, more like an abomination. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== I like Pi ==

Pi R Squared? No they're not, Pie are round. Brownies are square. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:LOL. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:08, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

==22/7==
Besides the fact that "Pi is exactly 3!", 22/7 is also a repeating decimal.
Pi is also known as Archimedes' constant, Ludolphine, and Ludolph's Number.
Ludolph van Ceulen (Germany) spent a great deal of time calculating digits of pi. The number is engraved on his tombstone. If I were to get buried, I would have all the digits I memorized engraved on it, but I want to get cremated instead. [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 10:16, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:It is not true that Pi is exactly 3. What is your suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:31, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

::I haven't said anything about my beliefs, let's just leave my life out of this, eh? And, with you saying that pi=3, are you suggesting CP completely rewrites this article? [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 10:39, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::If you are not claiming that pi = 3, then that makes two of us. :-)
:::I've made a few updates to the article, primarily about scriptural references and historical estimates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:41, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

==Is the Bible wrong about pi?==

In the ancient world, measurements were not given as exact as they are today, and that was generally considered acceptable.
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/piwrong.html [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Who said it was wrong? Sloppy ancients aren't nessecarily wrong ancients. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::So, can I reinsert the Bibical perspective? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::It's not relevant simply to note that the Bible happens to approximate it in passing. However, many use it as an argument to show that the Bible is errant, and that's what I surmise may have been the purpose for its inclusion [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:35, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Wait. The Bible's interpretation of Pi is not relevant to Pi? What? Look, friend, the Bible is always relevant. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::You admit you're an atheist on your user page. Why are you so interested in inserting this in there? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::I admit I'm an atheist-- You say it like it's a bad thing. I'm not trying to stat a fight, Dan, I just figure that, as a wiki with a majority of users that are Christian, it would be good to include the Biblical perspective on matters where it has spoken, as is done in [[shrimp]]. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:18, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:I didn't realize that was still in [[shrimp]]. Anyways, as the article posted above explains, the numbers were not meant to be exact, and the circumference and diameter may have been given as approximate estimates, but pi wasn't a concept that most people knew about or cared about. The Bible wasn't meaning to comment on pi at that point, only at the relevant calculations. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:24, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::That's great, Dan. You seem pretty hostile to the Bible. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't see how Dan seems to be "pretty hostile to the Bible". Your insertion was simply wrong, as the Bible is not trying to give a value for pi at all. Besides, the Bible reference which is frequently quoted by bibliosceptics as supposedly representing pi is already in the article, and even that warrants being removed (in that form) in my opinion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Oh... So anything a skeptic quotes must be purged, then? What is the purpose of the verse if not to show the value of pi? Furthermore, how do you know what the Bible is and is not trying to say, Philip? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:48, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:Also, bibliosceptics is A: Spelled wrong and B: a word which would translate as "Skeptical of books." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:49, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, bugger. It seems I didn't notice that the verse was already quoted in the History section. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::: I didn't say that anything a sceptic quotes should be purged.
::: What's the purpose if not to show the value of pi? To ''describe the object's size'', genius!
::: What is incorrect about the spelling of "bibliosceptics"? Yes, the word ''could'' mean "sceptical of books", but as "Bible" means "book", it's appropriate to use it to mean "sceptical of the Bible".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::"Besides, the Bible reference which is frequently quoted by bibliosceptics as supposedly representing pi is already in the article, and even that warrants being removed (in that form) in my opinion." That's exactly what you said, Philip!
::::Then why not describe it ''correctly''?
::::Skeptics. With a K. Also: Yes. I know it means book. Your use of faux Latin does not make you smarter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: That quote of mine does not indicate that ''anything'' a sceptic quotes should be purged, and neither does it say that that bit should be removed ''because it's something a sceptic quotes''.
::::: Aussies traditionally spell "sceptic" with a "c", hence my use of "bibliosceptic" rather than "biblioskeptic".
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

A fourth consecutive edit, because a thought occurs. How can we be sure that man's measurements are correct in this case but the Bible is not? Furthermore, if the Bible is wrong here, how can we logically accept that everything else is exact-- IE, the age of the Earth? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:56, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
: What reason is there to think that the Bible's measurements are incorrect? The logic of your question is valid, but the premise (that the Bible is incorrect) is not. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:05, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::Well, if it's ten cubits from one side to the other, it should be 31 all around, if we're rounding. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: What if it was actually 9.7 cubits (rounded to 10) from one side to the other? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Then the measurement given is, quite simply, wrong. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:44, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: Huh? Okay, I'll have to spell it out for you. If (and this is not the only possible explanation) the ''actual'' diameter was 9.7 cubits, then the ''actual'' radius would be 30.47 cubits. If ''both'' of those figures are rounded to the nearest cubit, then the diameter would be listed as 10 cubits and the circumference would be listed as 30 cubits. And guess what! That's what the Bible lists them as! So if this is correct (and it doesn't have to be exactly that: it could be 9.6 cubits for example), then the Bible is perfectly accurate! ("Accurate" is a different thing to "precise", as Ed mentions below.) If you still aren't convinced, have a look at the links in the External Links section of the article, particularly the Math Forum one. In fact, don't reply here unless you first read the three links. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:03, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::Yes. Rounding. I get it. It's impercise. If I say Ed is six feet tall, I'm wrong because he's not. If I say he's ''about'' six feet tall, I'm right, because he's just over six feet tall. Is that so hard to understand, Philip? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:06, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Alright. Scanned through the links. I get it-- God couldn't be arsed to tell the lowly Earthers a more prescise number. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:51, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: You've earned yourself another block for that arrogant response.
::::::::: If Ed is 6 feet, 3.02 inches tall, would you refer to him as "about 6'3" tall"? The articles said nothing about God not telling us a more precise number. The first link points out that their measurements would not be that precise to start with. In this case, they are not rounding, but simply measuring with a course measuring device. The second reference pointed out that it was common to round numbers in those times. Insisting on using the word "about" is really a case of you expecting people from 3000 years ago to follow your conventions. It doesn't mean that they got anything wrong. The third reference pointed out the following:
:::::::::* "''...in the absence of an explicit indication of precision, the absence of a tenths digit implies that the figure is accurate to the nearest 1 cubit...''". So the measurements were accurate to within the implied level of precision!
:::::::::* "''Every measurement we ever make is an approximation.''". So do you preface ''every'' measurement with "about"? (That's the point of my question above about Ed being 6'3.02" tall.) Absence of the word "about" does ''not'' mean that the measurement is "wrong".
::::::::: You acknowledged none of those points in your response, instead making a silly comment about God. It's clear that you simply want to argue a point that has been thoroughly refuted, and you've stopped doing so civilly. Hence your block. Learn from it.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:55, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::You're not wrong to call me six feet tall; I don't mind losing 3 inches in the interest of smooth prose. Just don't call me [[Metric to English conversions|two meters]] tall! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::That's what the "about" is for-- it indicates impercision. Most useful article ever, by the way. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:59, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I took a few science courses in high school and college. You might be interested to learn about the difference between "[[accuracy]]" and "[[precision]]". (I probably should compare and contrast the two ideas in a proposed new article: [[accuracy and precision]].)

:::Here's how it's relevant to [[Pi]]. When the Bible says ten cubits, that is an approximation. Scientists would say the measurement is being given to "[[one significant figure]]". It really could be anything between 9 and 11 cubits, and it still wouldn't be wrong, because it's only an approximation, like saying that Ed Poor is six feet tall (I'm 6'3" in bare feet).

:::The ratio between the diameter of a wheel and its circumference is, roughly, three. And if you drew a circle on the ground, with a diameter of 10 cubits, you would pace off 30 cubits when you walked around the circle. [[Pacing]] is not a very precise measurement, but it's good enough for some cases. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:01, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: "''It really could be anything between 9 and 11 cubits...''": 9.5 and 10.5 actually. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:06, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Anyway, you're being too patient with a time-waster. Liberals l-o-v-e to change the subject, with distractions like the supposedly preferable spelling of sceptic. I'm sceptical of this fella's motives, and I've left a note at his talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:13, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: I would actually like him to answer my last question above, though. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::Ed: You'll get a response in the appropriate place momentarily, don't worry.
:::::Philip J. Rayment: So you have wished it, so it shall be. Response is above. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:44, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

The Bible does not provide a value for pi, so the following statement is misleading at best:

:The [[Qur'an]] also defines Pi as 3.(al-Sûra ''aleph bei'').

Use of the word "also" implies that the Bible has provided a definition. The story about the ten cubits does not define pi. It merely gives a diameter and a radius of something presumed to be circular. (A circumference of thirty is consistent with a diameter of ten, with a precision of one [[significant digit]].)

In any case, I'd like to see the exact words of an English translation of any Koran passage related to circle math before approving any claim as damaging as "defines Pi as 3." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:53, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:Over the years, I've found this to be one of the sillier arguments against the Bible. I've found that those who push it don't believe it, but only do so to try to force in a 'gotcha' that they themselves know isn't the case, but nevertheless they draw enjoyment from trying to act like it is anyway. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:48, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

==I do not like the "Pi in the Bible" section...==
...for many reasons. First, the title is misleading, as the text points out. There is no pi in the Bible (only unleaven bread--just kidding!), nor does the Bible make any attempt to define pi or ''e'' or or any other mathematical or physical constant. Second, I think the subject is out of place in an article about mathematics. Perhaps it should be a minor section in an apologetics-related article. Or be omitted entirely, as it is not really a serious criticism, but more a "baby apologetics" thing that appeals to unsophisticated Bible skeptics.

Thirdly, while I appreciate that someone has done the work of gathering the arguments in one place, the wording could be better. It says "Critics claim this, but they are making the following assumptions". Better to say "Critics say this but they are wrong for these reasons." You do not know what someone else's assumptions are.

Fourthly, a minor point. If you opt to keep this section, you might point out that when critics complain that the Bible rounds the circumference to a multiple of ten instead of something more precise (say, 31.4 cubits), they are being inconsistent, because that number is also imprecise. Because pi is irrational, there is no number that could be contained (in a finite Bible) that could give the measurement exactly. What the baby skeptics are doing here is setting an impossible condition for precision, then saying that if the Bible is imprecise it is not inerrant (another big leap in logic), and hoping that no one will notice the flaws in their reasoning.

{{unsigned|Ga ohoyt}}

:I wasn't happy with the title either (and I wrote it!), but I wasn't sure what else to have. The next best think I could think of was to put pi in quote marks: "Pi" in the Bible.
: I don't think the article is particularly out of place. The article is about pi specifically (not just "mathematics"), and this section is about pi, or at least about a claim made about pi. It is not a serious criticism in the sense of having even a shred of validity, but it is something that is ''often'' claimed by bible critics. The Skeptics Annotated Bible mentions it, for example.
: As for the mention of assumptions, no, you don't need to know what assumptions they are consciously making; there are certain assumptions ''inherent'' in the argument, which is all that the comment is saying. That is, they ''must be'' making these assumptions, even if subconsciously. That's not to say that the wording can't be altered to something better, but I do think it's acceptable as it is.
: There were a couple of other problems with the claim that I thought of mentioning, but the section was large enough already and the others were in a sense variations on the ones already mentioned, so I thought that was enough. Yes, they often claim that the value is "incorrect", but then are unable to give the "correct" value themselves (because it has an infinite number of digits). And that would be a good thing to point out if the Bible was actually claiming to give a value for pi, but as it's not, it seemed a little bit unnecessary.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:48, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Better now? [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 20:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not sure (but I don't think it's worse). I don't think it's appropriate to have a question for a heading, and neither do I think it's appropriate for the heading to be part of the flow of the text, as is now the case, because the first sentence of the section doesn't make sense without the heading. A heading should give an idea of what the section is about, not be part of the section, if you're following me. Also, the claim is not (normally) explicitly made that the Bible defines pi, as indicated by the heading. Rather, that claim is ''implicit'' in the ''explicit'' claim that the Bible has an incorrect value for pi. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:19, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

I think the section is necessary because we ''do'' periodically hear this canard about Pi, and the encyclopedia should give the reader the information he needs to respond to it. However, I think the article's response is insufficiently dismissive.

I would simply say that the numbers in the Biblical passage ''are'' correct, to their given precision. Hence there is no controversy. Likewise, if an encyclopedia gives the radius and circumference of the Earth to the nearest thousand feet, the encyclopedia is not "wrong about Pi," and nobody would seriously say it was. It seems that only in the case of the Bible are critics so impassioned as to buy such a dopey argument.

Also, I think it is too weak to say it was "common at the time to round numbers." It is common ''all the time'' to give measurements like this, and to do so without any conscious or explicit rounding. The way these bullet points are worded, they give the impression that the values D=10 and C=30 need to be explained by some hypothetical act: maybe someone rounded a measurement, maybe they measured different parts of the rim, etc. But D=10 and C=30 does not need any of these explanations because, as I said, they are correct to their given precision, and there is no discrepancy that needs to be explained. I'd just remove them, lest they contribute to the sense of false controversy.

== Question on the Bible reference ==

Were decimals and fractions even in use in the Holy Land at the time 1 Kings was written? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:26, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
: Decimals, no, I think. Fractions, yes, to some extent, I think. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:39, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-11-19T02:45:41Z

NgSmith: /* Comments on Newtonian Mechanics */

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-11-19T02:44:25Z

NgSmith: /* Comments on Newtonian Mechanics */

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-11-17T19:46:15Z

NgSmith: /* Comments on Newtonian Mechanics */

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-11-17T15:43:02Z

NgSmith: /* Comments on Newtonian Mechanics */

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-11-16T04:35:55Z

NgSmith: /* Comments on Newtonian Mechanics */