https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=SamHB&feedformat=atomConservapedia - User contributions [en]2018-09-26T13:02:15ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.24.2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:FredJ&diff=1450046User:FredJ2018-09-23T18:14:17Z<p>SamHB: welcome</p>
<hr />
<div>{{welcome|sig=SamHB}}<br />
<br />
I have placed a reply to your recent edit on the [[Talk:Gay_bashing]] page. Here is a copy:<br />
:You presumably know that the internet is a big place, and one can find statements in support of just about any viewpoint, however outlandish or nonsensical-by-the-standards-of-normal-sensible-people they may be. If one spends huge amounts of time scouring the internet for wacky statements, one will find them.<br />
::"Seek, and ye shall find" -- Matthew 7:7. (Am I saying the internet is like God? No.)<br />
:There are a few people at Conservapedia who frequently do this, User:Conservative ("Cons") perhaps foremost among them. I still occasionally find treasure troves of this sort of thing, like [https://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_Attention_atheists:_You_don%27t_own_the_internet this thing about someone named "cultofdusty", who posted some silly thing on youtube about how atheists own the internet]. If a normal person came across such tripe they would simply move on, after promising themselves not to spend so much time clicking on asinine youtube videos.<br />
<br />
:On another topic, please be aware that posting <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags at Conservapedia almost never ends well. Countering misinformation is not easy. Choose your battles carefully.<br />
<br />
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:14, 23 September 2018 (EDT)</div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:SamHB&diff=1450043User:SamHB2018-09-23T18:09:40Z<p>SamHB: Thanks for calling my attention to that, Cons! Observant Christians aren't stupid.</p>
<hr />
<div>Archives: [[User:SamHB/Archive 2|2]] [[User:SamHB/Archive 3|3]] [[User:SamHB/Archive 4|4]]<br />
<br />
<br><br />
<center><b align="center" style="width: 70%; background:#000;color:#eee;border: 4px gold solid; font-size: 20px;">INACTIVE FOR 66 DAYS (until August 28, 2018)</b><br><br><br></center><br />
<br />
<br><br />
<center><b align="center" style="width: 70%; background:#000;color:#eee;border: 4px gold solid; font-size: 20px;">INACTIVE FOR 66 DAYS (until May 20, 2018)</b><br><br><br></center><br />
<br />
<br><br />
<center><b align="center" style="width: 70%; background:#000;color:#eee;border: 4px gold solid; font-size: 20px;">INACTIVE FOR 66 DAYS (until February 16, 2018)</b><br><br><br></center><br />
<br />
<br><br />
<center><b align="center" style="width: 70%; background:#000;color:#eee;border: 4px gold solid; font-size: 20px;">INACTIVE FOR 66 DAYS (until November 19, 2017)</b><br><br><br></center><br />
<br />
<br><br />
<center><b align="center" style="width: 70%; background:#000;color:#eee;border: 4px gold solid; font-size: 25px;">NO-CLAPTRAP ZONE</b></center><br />
<br />
<center><b align="center" style="width: 70%; background:#000;color:#eee;border: 4px gold solid; font-size: 20px;">THIS USER HAS ZERO TOLERANCE FOR NONSENSE</b><br><br><br></center><br />
<br />
<br />
I also have zero tolerance for<br />
*Idiotic behavior.<br />
*Sycophancy. I note in particular those people that try to take Andy's side in controversies over relativity, but run away when asked questions that require actual understanding of the subject. It's really very transparent. I've developed good "spider sense" on this issue. More on this topic below.<br />
*Childish behavior. Children should be seen and not <s>heard</s> given block authority.<br />
<br />
<br />
So here are some essays that eschew claptrap:<br />
<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Attempts to prove E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E%3Dmc²]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Biblical scientific foreknowledge]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to the "Calming the Storm" essay]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]<br />
*[[Essay:Radiometric dating - a non-Creationist Perspective]]<br />
*[[Essay:Commentary on Conservapedia's article on the second law of thermodynamics]]<br />
*[[Essay:Pussy Riot - an Anti-Putin Perspective]]<br />
What's that last one doing here? Funny you should ask. It's really just the same as the main [[Pussy Riot]] article, but it removes the claim that only leftists oppose Vladimir Putin. A look at the history of the main article will show what's going on. Apparently there are people here who think that opposing a thug who has his political opponents murdered in the street while security cameras mysteriously malfunction is something only "liberals" and "leftists" do. I would like to think that opposition to such a person would be something liberals and conservatives could all agree on. But not here.<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>'''Anyone who wants to contact me may do so at sam4557@gmail.com.'''</center><br />
<br />
At present, I make edits to those things that I believe I can improve (mostly [[science]] and [[math]]) and stay away from those things that are utterly hopeless (like [[evolution]], [[creationism]], and why year 20XX is going to be the worst year ever for evolution or [[atheism]] or whatever.) I also (believe it or not, and some people don't) try to encourage well-intentioned new users, and try to make this a more orderly and friendly place. I also engage in a lot of good-natured banter with Cons. I also occasionally find myself amused by the way [[User:VargasMilan|some users]] seem to [[User_talk:SamHB#Apology|stalk]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page&diff=1110822&oldid=1110821 me].<br />
<br />
I am seriously "behind the curve" on the latest high-tech gadgetry. I own a laptop computer (several of them in fact) and am quite literate about actual computer science. I do not have "FIOS" or any similar things; just plain cable internet. I do not use things like Skype or Instant Messaging (or Tinder, or Facebook, or SnapChat, or Pinterest, or Twitter ..., though I have, under duress, used IM at work. However, I am capable of high-bandwidth communication with people through email, using attachments when the information transfer quantity requires it. People desiring to contact me are strongly encouraged to use the email account given above.<br />
<br />
In addition to the email above, I have accounts, all under the same name (SamHB) at Wikipedia, Wikiversity, <s>Ameriwiki (I am an administrator)</s>, and that other place that rhymes with "national picky".<br />
<br />
----<br />
There is a section about the Daily Beast article on my [[User_talk:SamHB|talk page]]. It was originally on mainpage talk, and seems to have disappeared.<br />
----<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
A few words about vandalism and parody in science and math articles. There's a lot of it. I have reverted a lot of it. Just in the last few weeks I cleaned up some parody in the articles on Calcium and on Gabriel's horn. (Well, in the latter case I just pointed it out.) ''Both parodists' accounts are still active.''<br />
<br />
Furthermore, I would like to point out that there is a lot more parody in math and science articles. It's just too much for one person to fix.<br />
<br />
<br><br />
<br />
{{Userboxtop}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#DC143C |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=[[Image:Stop_hand.svg|45px]] |info=<center><big>This user has been blocked '''20''' times.</big></center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=SP |info=This user knows how to use "Show preview".}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:Atom.jpg|45px]] |info=<center>This user knows that '''[http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_01 evolution]''' explains the origin of species.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |#000|#AfA|[[image:earthsat.jpeg|45px]]|This user knows that the Earth is billions of years old according to conservative scientific measurements.}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:Universe_expansion.png|45px]] |info=<center>This user knows that the '''Big Bang''' explains the origin of the Universe.</center>}}<br />
{{User Protestant}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFBBBB |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:UserCross.jpg|30px]] |info=<center>This user respects your right to be a fundamentalist, but does not necessarily accept whatever scientific conclusions you might draw from that.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#ff5050 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=[[Image:John McCain official portrait 2009.jpg|50px]] |info=<center>This user considers [[John McCain]] to be a war hero, patriot, great American, great Senator, and great Republican. He is ''not'' a RINO.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[File:Horse picture.jpg|45px]] |info=<center>While this user deplores deviant and perverted sexual behavior, it is not a [[Talk:Air_pressure|source of embarrassment, or a sore point]], with him.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|45px]] |info=<center>This user knows that [[relativity]] provides a good explanation for physical phenomena at scales for which field theories are applicable.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|45px]] |info=<center>This user knows that [[relativity]] provides a good explanation for the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|45px]] |info=<center>This user knows that [[relativity]] provides a good explanation for the result of the Pound-Rebka experiment.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|45px]] |info=<center>This user knows that [[relativity]] provides a good explanation for the connection between radioactive decay energies and the precise isotopic weights that are summarized in periodic table charts hanging in science classrooms all over the world.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|45px]] |info=<center>This user knows that [[relativity]] provides a good explanation for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|45px]] |info=<center>This user knows that [[relativity]] provides a good explanation for the observed frequency anomalies in GPS satellites.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|45px]] |info=<center>This user knows that [[relativity]] provides a good explanation for the "frame-dragging" effects observed by the "gravity probe B" satellite.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|45px]] |info=<center>This user knows that [[relativity]] provides a good explanation for the observed behavior of pulsar PSR_B1913_16.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|45px]] |info=<center>This user knows that [[relativity]] provides a good explanation for the 2015 and 2017 observations of gravitational waves emitted by merging black holes.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=<s>Breitbart</s> |info=This user does not support Breitbart News or its lies, bias, and [[fake news]].}}<br />
{{Userboxbottom}}<br />
<br />
==John McCain, an American hero==<br />
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="margin:0em 0em 1em 0em;"<br />
| style="vertical-align:top; background-color:Black;" |<br />
<div style="padding:2em 2em 2em 2em;"><br />
[[File:John McCain official portrait 2009.jpg|thumbnail|400px|center]]<br />
</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
His farewell statement, written just prior to his death:<br />
<br />
:“My fellow Americans, whom I have gratefully served for sixty years, and especially my fellow Arizonans,<br />
<br />
:“Thank you for the privilege of serving you and for the rewarding life that service in uniform and in public office has allowed me to lead. I have tried to serve our country honorably. I have made mistakes, but I hope my love for America will be weighed favorably against them.<br />
<br />
:“I have often observed that I am the luckiest person on Earth. I feel that way even now as I prepare for the end of my life. I have loved my life, all of it. I have had experiences, adventures and friendships enough for ten satisfying lives, and I am so thankful. Like most people, I have regrets. But I would not trade a day of my life, in good or bad times, for the best day of anyone else’s.<br />
<br />
:“I owe that satisfaction to the love of my family. No man ever had a more loving wife or children he was prouder of than I am of mine. And I owe it to America. To be connected to America’s causes ― liberty, equal justice, respect for the dignity of all people ― brings happiness more sublime than life’s fleeting pleasures. Our identities and sense of worth are not circumscribed but enlarged by serving good causes bigger than ourselves.<br />
<br />
:“‘Fellow Americans’ ― that association has meant more to me than any other. I lived and died a proud American. We are citizens of the world’s greatest republic, a nation of ideals, not blood and soil. We are blessed and are a blessing to humanity when we uphold and advance those ideals at home and in the world. We have helped liberate more people from tyranny and poverty than ever before in history. We have acquired great wealth and power in the process.<br />
<br />
:“We weaken our greatness when we confuse our patriotism with tribal rivalries that have sown resentment and hatred and violence in all the corners of the globe. We weaken it when we hide behind walls, rather than tear them down, when we doubt the power of our ideals, rather than trust them to be the great force for change they have always been.<br />
<br />
:“We are three-hundred-and-twenty-five million opinionated, vociferous individuals. We argue and compete and sometimes even vilify each other in our raucous public debates. But we have always had so much more in common with each other than in disagreement. If only we remember that and give each other the benefit of the presumption that we all love our country we will get through these challenging times. We will come through them stronger than before. We always do.<br />
<br />
:“Ten years ago, I had the privilege to concede defeat in the election for president. I want to end my farewell to you with the heartfelt faith in Americans that I felt so powerfully that evening.<br />
<br />
:"I feel it powerfully still.<br />
<br />
:“Do not despair of our present difficulties but believe always in the promise and greatness of America, because nothing is inevitable here. Americans never quit. We never surrender. We never hide from history. We make history.<br />
<br />
:“Farewell, fellow Americans. God bless you, and God bless America.”<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
From an opinion column in the ''Washington Post'', by Stephen Wrage, a professor in the political science department at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis. The piece reflects the author’s views and not those of the Navy or any other organization. It refers to the U.S. Naval Academy graduation on May 25, 2018, where President Trump will speak, and to emails he has received from several midshipmen, such as:<br />
<br />
:"We are under no obligation to clap for Donald Trump. Trump wants the image of young service members cheering him on and we can deny him that image."<br />
:"We are taught selflessness; he practices narcissism."<br />
:"If he is a role model, it is only in the exact opposite."<br />
<br />
Wrage goes on:<br />
:"... There is no question, however, how the officers whom the midshipmen report to will behave: They will offer the quiet deference they owe to the office of the president. They speak with full academic freedom in their classrooms, but they maintain military decorum at a ceremony."<br />
<br />
:"Decades later, officers remember their commissioning. One Marine I know recalled whole passages he heard from the speech at his graduation in 1993, 25 years ago. That year, John McCain came to speak and, as they say, he killed it."<br />
<br />
:McCain told them<br />
{{cquote|As ensigns and second lieutenants, the character of the young sailors and Marines entrusted to your care will be formed in large part by their appreciation of your character. You are where leadership begins. You are the models who stand just past the sergeants and chiefs, and those under your command will derive from your behavior the direction of their own lives. Their firm respect for you, on which their lives and our security will depend, will be determined by how faithfully you keep, on duty and off, the code you learned here.}}<br />
<br />
:At least one Marine in the crowd will recall the way McCain closed his speech:<br />
{{cquote|I will go to my grave in gratitude to my Creator for allowing me to stand witness to such courage and honor. And so will you. My time is slipping by. Yours is fast approaching. You will know where your duty lies. You will know. God bless you. Semper Fi. Fair winds and following seas.}}<br />
<br />
===Moral clarity===<br />
"The administration’s current family separation policy is an affront to the decency of the American people, and contrary to principles and values upon which our nation was founded. The administration has the power to rescind this policy. It should do so now." -- John McCain, Jun 18, 2018.<br />
<br />
===Other opinions===<br />
"He's dying anyway" -- Kelly Sadler, White House aide, May 10 2018, on McCain's opposition to a nominee for CIA director.<br />
<br />
"Torture Is Good, ‘It Worked on John McCain'" -- Thomas McInerney, Fox News contributor, May 10, 2018.<br />
<br />
===Sarah Palin===<br />
I do not agree with the decision not to invite Ms. Palin to the funeral. While I strongy disagree with just about everything she says, she was his running mate in an historic election. The decision was apparently made by McCain's widow.<br />
<br />
==Bible verses, Matthew 5:1-11==<br />
<br />
*And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:<br />
*And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,<br />
*Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.<br />
*Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.<br />
*Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.<br />
*Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.<br />
*Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.<br />
*Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.<br />
*Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.<br />
*Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.<br />
*Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.<br />
<br />
==Bible verses, Luke 2:7-14==<br />
<br />
:And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.<br />
:And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.<br />
:And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.<br />
:And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.<br />
:For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.<br />
:And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.<br />
:And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,<br />
:Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.<br />
<br />
==The current occupant of the White House==<br />
<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about American history.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about American government.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about compassion.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about empathy<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about forgiveness.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about contrition.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about redemption.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about Christianity.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about the Bible.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about self-control.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about ethics.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about patriotism.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about service.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about honesty.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about science.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about healthy eating.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about a healthy lifestyle.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about exercise.<br />
*Knows very little about American geography.<br />
*Knows very little about spelling.<br />
*Knows absolutely nothing about respect for women.<br />
*Knows absolutely nothing about the sanctity of marriage.<br />
<br />
==Roy Moore==<br />
I see that that cesspool of fake news known as Breitbart.com has been accusing Beverly Nelson, one of Roy Moore's accusers, of forgery. That is, of writing the note below Mr. Moore's inscription in her yearbook and asserting that Moore wrote that note himself. I don't have time to do my usual careful analysis of what's going in on this case, but I'll just present a few web links:<br />
<br />
*[http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/08/bombshell-roy-moore-accuser-admits-forged-yearbook/ A thing in Breitbart]<br />
*[http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/08/forgery-explained-beverly-young-nelson-gloria-allred-presented-notes-roy-moores-writing/ Another]<br />
*[http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/12/called-gloria-allred-accuser-admits-tampered-roy-moores-yearbook-signature-video/ More fake news, this time from The Gateway Pundit.]<br />
*[http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/09/politics/roy-moore-accuser-yearbook-notation/index.html The note beneath the inscription was hers; she never said it wasn't.]<br />
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20171208170804/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/08/roy-moore-accuser-admits-forged-part-yearbook-inscription-attributed-to-alabama-senate-candidate.html Fox news got caught up in this too. (Page is from the internet archive.)]<br />
*[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fox-news-corrects-story-claiming-roy-moore-accuser-forged-candidates-signature_us_5a2c1d58e4b0a290f051304f But Fox news had the integrity to correct their story.]<br />
<br />
==Religious people and Donald Trump==<br />
An article from June 2016 (just before the election)<ref>https://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/06/30/atheism-is-rising-but/</ref> says "Finally, it’s not a coincidence that religiously observant Christians were least likely to be seduced by Donald Trump’s “post-truth” style politics in the GOP primary."<br />
<br />
==America==<br />
::''This little bit of patriotism was inspired by a [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SamHB#A_liberal_is_wanted_for_an_online_dialogue recent discussion on my talk page].''<br />
::''The reader's attention is particularly drawn to the last two lines of the second stanza.''<br />
<br />
:O beautiful for spacious skies,<br />
:For amber waves of grain,<br />
:For purple mountain majesties<br />
:Above the fruited plain!<br />
:America! America!<br />
:God shed His grace on thee<br />
:And crown thy good with brotherhood<br />
:From sea to shining sea!<br />
<br /><br />
:O beautiful for pilgrim feet,<br />
:Whose stern, impassioned stress<br />
:A thoroughfare for freedom beat<br />
:Across the wilderness!<br />
:America! America!<br />
:God mend thine every flaw,<br />
:Confirm thy soul in self-control,<br />
:Thy liberty in law!<br />
<br /><br />
:O beautiful for heroes proved<br />
:In liberating strife,<br />
:Who more than self their country loved<br />
:And mercy more than life!<br />
:America! America!<br />
:May God thy gold refine,<br />
:Till all success be nobleness,<br />
:And every gain divine!<br />
<br /><br />
:O beautiful for patriot dream<br />
:That sees beyond the years<br />
:Thine alabaster cities gleam<br />
:Undimmed by human tears!<br />
:America! America!<br />
:God shed His grace on thee<br />
:And crown thy good with brotherhood<br />
:From sea to shining sea!<br />
<br />
==People who write about relativity but don't know what they are talking about==<br />
I occasionally run into people wishing to weigh in on relativity, opposing it. This of course sets off my sycophancy alarm. They seem to be agreeing with Andy with very little understanding of the topic. When asked for an explanation, they typically run away. To be clear, Andy is the only person I know of that can communicate relativity denial with any degree of effectiveness or erudition; all others that I have seen are either sycophants, vandals, or just plain troublemakers. (Though I'm openminded enough to allow that another articulate relativity denier could show up in the future.)<br />
<br />
Arguments for or against relativity are conducted at a rather sophisticated level here at Conservapedia. The topic is not for amateurs.<br />
<br />
Here is my homework assignment for people wishing to join the anti-relativity bandwagon. Read the following articles:<br />
*[[Theory of relativity]]<br />
*[[Talk:Theory of relativity]]<br />
*[[General theory of relativity]]<br />
*[[E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Talk:E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Talk:E=mc²/Archive 1]]<br />
*[[Talk:E=mc²/Archive 2]]<br />
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity/archive2]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Talk:Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Attempts to prove E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Talk:Attempts to prove E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Attempts to prove E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Talk:Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This one is particularly recommended for showing what happens when someone gets involved in the topic while being totally out of his depth.<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[User talk:Aschlafly/Archive56]]<br />
*[[User talk:Aschlafly/Archive59]]<br />
*[[User talk:Aschlafly/Archive60]]<br />
*[[Community Portal/Archive 1]]<br />
*[[Cockcroft and Walton Experiment]]<br />
*[[Talk:Cockcroft and Walton Experiment]]<br />
*[[Nuclear transmutation]]<br />
*[[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]]<br />
*[[Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]<br />
*[[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?]]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/space,_time,_and_the_Lorentz_transform Lecture 1 from Wikiversity]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/momentum Lecture 2 from Wikiversity]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/energy Lecture 3 from Wikiversity]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/E_%3D_mc%C2%B2 Lecture 4 from Wikiversity]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/spacetime_diagrams_and_vectors Lecture 5 from Wikiversity]<br />
<br />
==How '''NOT''' to proselytize==<br />
[[User:Conservative]] ("Cons") has the laudable goal of introducing people to Christianity on the pages of this wiki. However, I don't think the incredibly obsessive way he does this is likely to be effective.<br />
*He seems obsessed with svelte Indian Christian ladies and their graceful dancing style, as though that should persuade people to embrace Christianity. (Many references in [[Essay:_Indian_Christian_culture_is_better_than_low_class_atheist_%22culture%22|this article]].)<br />
::"Well, gosh. Those Indian Christian ladies are so graceful, that must show that Jesus is the son of God. I'd better join a church right away."<br />
*He also seems obsessed with Penn Jillette's lack of grace when dancing the "Walrus Slide", and with the fact that Ken Ham likes to yodel. (See [[Essay:_Penn_Jillette%27s_walrus_slide_vs._thin_Indian_Christian_lady_dancers|this article, which is remarkably similar to the one cited just above]].)<br />
::"Well, gosh. Ken Ham likes to yodel when climbing the Triceratops model at the Creation Museum, and when climbing mountains. I guess that shows that the universe was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago."<br />
*He also points out that the Swiss like to yodel, [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SamHB#re:_well-intentioned_and_level-headed_people here].<br />
::"Well, gosh. The Swiss like to yodel. Jesus is lord!"<br />
*He also likes to point out, in too many places to list here, that non-Western cultures are expanding at the expense of traditional American cultures. He says this with a degree of glee that makes me wonder whose side he is on.<br />
::"Well, gosh. Non-Western societies are rapidly growing due to their high birth rate. I guess I'd better convert to Islam."<br />
*He points out the atheists aren't as good-looking as religious people [[Atheists and physical attractiveness|here]], as though there is something meaningful that we are supposed to take away from this notion.<br />
::"Well, gosh. Women don't seem to want to date me. I guess I'm ugly. I'd better join a Bible study group at my college. That will make me better-looking, and I'll get lots of dates."<br />
*And then there's [[Essay:_Militant_atheism_and_short_man's_syndrome|this]] gem.<br />
::"Well, gosh. I'm kind of short. Most women I know are taller than I am, and seem not to want to date men shorter than they are. Maybe if I go to church regularly I'll grow taller. There ''is'' a causal relationship, isn't there? It's right in the essay: "Get over it little man, shortness is a causal factor for militant atheism!"<br />
*He has also been pointing out for several years and "20XX is going to be (or already is) the worst year ever for atheism. He even made a past-tense claim about a year that is still happening [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/166#2018_was_a_TERRIBLE_year_for_militant_atheists here].<br />
::"Well, gosh. After all this, are atheists still around? How come I still see so many of them? Does the existence of God not depend on something someone once said in an elevator?"<br />
*He had recently been obsessed with potholes in British streets, even putting an article on the main page for a while. He apparently wants to use the state of British roads to make some quasi-political, quasi-religious, quasi-scientific argument.<br />
::"Well, gosh. There are potholes in streets in the UK, and Charles Darwin (more than 100 years ago) was British. I guess that means that evolution did not occur. I'm glad people can see these scientific principles so clearly."<br />
Most of his "articles" contain enormous numbers of references to other of his articles, as though that counts as a "reference".<br />
<br />
==I would really love to see [[User:Conservative]] slowly and painfully burn==<br />
his opponents in a debate.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, I'm not likely to see that, in view of his appalling lack of skill at convincing people that he is worth debating. Perhaps the most recent example is his page [[Essay: Debate challenge to new atheist Kyle Kulinski]]. Mr. Kulinski has made it very clear, in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39xlPMs3Obk this] video, that he will not debate anyone at Conservapedia, and has no respect for the way the admins marshall their arguments.<br />
<br />
There are other instances of Cons backing out when people were willing to debate him (I was actually involved in one of these.) Perhaps the most famous case was one in which a person offered to donate 12,500 British pounds to a Christian charity, but Cons backed out. The web site on which this took place cannot be named here, but one can Google the exact phrase "actually laughable collections"<br />
<br />
While Cons's debating and general rhetorical skill are appalling, there is one tactic that he is exceptionally good at&mdash;lifting quotes out of context. Probably the best example of this is the article [[Essay:_Atheist_PZ_Myers:_"I_despair_over_atheism_as_I_watch_it_burn...".]] This is, like so many of his other articles and essays, really just a collection of links to other of his articles. But it has an illustration showing a burning house, the same caption as the article itself: "Atheist PZ Myers: 'I despair over atheism as I watch it burn...'".<br />
<br />
What's in that ellipsis? Well, there is an external reference to [http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/01/30/feminism-isnt-a-side-issue-it-is-a-central-issue-in-any-movement-with-a-pretense-to-rationalism/ this] article at PZ Myers' "Pharyngula" blog. The actual quote from that article was "I despair over atheism, as I watch it burn away allies and embrace the default attitude of patronizing bro-ness." It seems to be about feminism and PZ Myers' atheism. Or something. It's actually quite boring, like most of his writing, and I haven't read it.<br />
<br />
But taking the phrase "watch it [atheism] burn away allies" and turning it into "watch it burn" is the most astonishing act of quoting out of context that I have ever seen.<br />
<br />
== Reinhold Niebuhr Quote (well, paraphrase)==<br />
<br />
{{cquote|God grant me the serenity to accept the things that are above the table of contents, the courage to change the things that are below it, and the wisdom to know the difference}}<br />
<br />
What does that refer to? It refers to the fact that someone recently added some sycophantic rubbish to the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] page. Fortunately, it was above the TOC, so I didn't have to move it. Unfortunately (fortunately, actually) AugustO is even less patient with nonsense than I am.<br />
<br />
==Never asked God for forgiveness?==<br />
<br />
{{Cquote|So help me understand why you thought God could use a man who’d said he’d never asked God for forgiveness, who serially committed adultery, who said he could grab women by the genitals, who cheated contractors and workers ... [who] didn’t even know how to say “Second Corinthians,” which he called “Two Corinthians,” and when asked for his favorite Bible verse struggled to name one until he landed on “an eye for an eye.” And you know what Jesus said about that one.|||Susan M. Shaw, Oregon State University}}<br />
<br />
==Bible verses, Matthew 6:19-21==<br />
<br />
{{cquote|Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.}}<br />
<br />
==Bible verses, Matthew 25:34-36==<br />
<br />
{{cquote|Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me, I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.}}<br />
<br />
==Bible verse, Galatians 6:7==<br />
<br />
{{cquote|Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.}}<br />
<br />
==Bible verse, Matthew 23:12==<br />
<br />
{{cquote|And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.}}<br />
<br />
==Late August, 2016, Do ants harvest? Do snakes hear?==<br />
<br />
I don't know. I have no expertise in this field.<br />
<br />
==Early March, 2016, I get blocked, and then weird things happen==<br />
<br />
I was blocked by my friend, after replacing an incredibly asinine page with a delete notice. The original block was for one week, extended an hour later to two weeks. The next day the same person, after apparently being [[taken to the woodshed]], unblocked me. (I nevertheless stayed away for three weeks.) This person then (perhaps after advice given in the woodshed) went to considerable lengths to inform me that the block had been lifted.<br />
<br />
He left a note on my talk page:<br />
<br />
:== I shortened your block. ==<br />
<br />
:I shortened your block. You are now unblocked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:53, 8 March 2016 (EST)<br />
<br />
And he sent me an email, to my sam4557@gmail.com account (which he had never used before):<br />
-----<br />
:Delivered-To: sam4557@gmail.com<br />
:Received: by ******** with HTTP; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 11:17:09 -0800 (PST)<br />
:Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 14:17:09 -0500<br />
:Subject: re: You have been unblocked at Conservapedia<br />
:From: "********" <********><br />
:To: sam4557@gmail.com<br />
<br />
:Dear Sam,<br />
<br />
:I unblocked you at Conservapedia.<br />
<br />
:Sincerely,<br />
<br />
:User: Conservativie<br />
-----<br />
(He often types his own user name incorrectly.)<br />
<br />
And another note on my talk page, to be sure I see it, in case I don't check the sam4557 mail very often:<br />
<br />
:== I sent you an email and... ==<br />
<br />
:SamHB,<br />
<br />
:I sent you an email. <br />
<br />
:Second, let me know when you get this message. {{unsigned|Conservative}}<br />
<br />
To which I left this reply: (All this was taking place on my talk page at the time, later moved here to my user page.)<br />
<br />
::See my user page. {{unsigned|SamHB}}<br />
<br />
I no longer remember exactly what reply was referenced.<br />
<br />
Then, a few weeks later, things got quite weird. He sent me 3 more emails:<br />
-----<br />
:Delivered-To: sam4557@gmail.com<br />
:Received: by ******** with HTTP; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 15:07:44 -0700 (PDT)<br />
:Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 18:07:44 -0400<br />
:Subject: re: talk page post<br />
:From: "********" <********><br />
:To: Sam Becker <sam4557@gmail.com><br />
<br />
:SamHB.<br />
<br />
:Do you have Skype? If so, we can talk about the TAR matter.<br />
<br />
:If you have a Skype account, what is your Skype name?<br />
<br />
:Sincerely,<br />
<br />
:User: Conservative<br />
-----<br />
:Delivered-To: sam4557@gmail.com<br />
:Received: by ******** with HTTP; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 17:07:39 -0700 (PDT)<br />
:Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 20:07:39 -0400<br />
:Subject: Re: talk page post<br />
:From: "********" <********><br />
:To: Sam Becker <sam4557@gmail.com><br />
<br />
:Sam,<br />
<br />
:I was hoping that you would get the email soon given that I have some free time tonight.<br />
<br />
:But since you didn't get the email soon, there is no need for the Skype call. I think the TAR matter will be settled via the talk pages.<br />
-----<br />
:Delivered-To: sam4557@gmail.com<br />
:Received: by ******** with HTTP; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 19:12:47 -0700 (PDT)<br />
:Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 22:12:47 -0400<br />
:Subject: Re: talk page post<br />
:From: "********" <********><br />
:To: Sam Becker <sam4557@gmail.com><br />
<br />
:I see you are active editing again.<br />
<br />
:Do you have a Skype name you wish to share? I am free to Skype a bit tonight.<br />
-----<br />
and left another note on my talk page about this:<br />
::I see you are editing again. Recheck your email. I sent you another email message. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:17, 2 April 2016 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I indirectly replied to all this on this user page (search above for "behind the curve") stating that I do not use Skype. I never replied to any of this by email.<br />
<br />
Then this appeared on my talk page:<br />
<br />
:== The prank that never happened ==<br />
<br />
:As you know, I/we recently invited you to Skype call about a matter. <br />
<br />
:Second, I know you are skeptical that the User: Conservative account has been used by more than one editor (despite the evidence to the contrary. Evidence that a website which has devotees of CP noted). <br />
<br />
[He really likes to misspell user names, by putting in a blank, perhaps to make them unclickable/unpasteable.]<br />
<br />
:Well, the Skype call was going to employ voice changing software so the voice of User: Conservativetism would be many. With proper notice, the various editors of User: Conservatism could have spoken to you via a Skype group/conference call. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:09, 3 April 2016 (EDT)<br />
<br />
[And this time it's "User:Conservativetism".]<br />
<br />
Wait! He was going to use some kind of "voice changing software" to rig up a Skype conference call with me in order to "prove" that he is multiple people?????? Really?<br />
----<br />
:Hey, he asked me via talk page to e-mail him and then via e-mail to Skype him. What you suppose he's doing? He asked 1990'sguy the same thing, I believe.--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 14:44, 4 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Early December, 2015, On the Curious Matter of Sex With Horses==<br />
<br />
I'm not an expert in poetry, atheist or otherwise, but I found [[Atheist poetry]], and its talk page, to be a welcome contrast from most of the topics Cons<ref>User Conservative, affectionately called "Cons"</ref> writes about. Cons got into a spirited discussion of the topic with [[User:JohnSelway]] and [[User:JohnZ]] on the [[Talk:Atheist poetry|talk page]]. So I congratulated him on his good taste in this matter, with a note on that talk page. But I also expressed disappointment that he had seemingly grown tired of the poetry topic, and had gone back to writing about bestiality.<br />
<br />
At about that time, he went on an editing binge, making 43 edits on the subjects of "Atheism and bestiality" or horses, including the creation of the article [[Essay: I say NAAAAAY to atheism and evolutionism!]], complete with a picture of a horse, which clearly suggests a particular interest in the topic of sex with horses.<br />
<br />
For some inexplicable reason, Cons moved my comment to the talk page for [[Atheism and bestiality]], and wrote a long reply about bestiality.<br />
<br />
Not having [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AEpistle_to_the_Hebrews_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=1183335&oldid=1183317 VargasMilan's vocabulary], I am at a loss for words to express how revolting I find that topic, and Cons's extensive writing about bestiality in general. Conservapedia was originally intended as a learning resource for home-school students, presumably in the junior high and high school age range. Everyone is encouraged to watch [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvT5YuDovHI this video] to see Conservapedia's original mission, as explained by Andy Schlafly himself.<br />
<br />
Now, to reply to Cons's remarks:<br />
<br />
:>> SamHB, because you are an evolutionist and a defender of evolutionary pseudoscience ...<br />
I prefer the term "one who accepts the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution". And I don't recognize the term "evolutionary pseudoscience". Sorry.<br />
<br />
:>> (along with holding to liberal theology which often tends to be anti-supernatural in character)<br />
I believe I pointed out to you, at [[User talk:SamHB#Daily Beast evolution article]], the significance of a comma in distinguishing a "restrictive clause" from a "nonrestrictive clause". By not using a comma after "theology", you are saying that, of all liberal theologies, I hold to one of those that "often tends to be anti-supernatural in character". You're right; I do. But perhaps you meant to say that ''all'' liberal theologies often tend to be anti-supernatural in character. If that is what you meant, you should have used a comma.<br />
<br />
:>> I can understand why the evolutionary belief and bestiality and Atheism and bestiality articles are upsetting to you<br />
No, those articles don't upset me at all, except insofar as they make a mockery of Conservapedia's goals.<br />
<br />
:>> especially since you cannot find a single factual error in these articles. <br />
We've been through this before, relating to various other things you've written. Find a factual error? I can hardly find a coherent sentence!<br />
<br />
==Mid-October, 2015, another vape-a-thon by Cons, over Pat Tillman==<br />
Disclaimer: I am not familiar with the case of Pat Tillman, except that it was apparently a tragic friendly-fire battlefield death in Afghanistan. I have absolutely no information on whether he was an atheist, and apparently no one at Conservapedia does either.<br />
<br />
But that didn't stop Cons from getting really worked up in a giant kerfuffle with some people (mostly user "Ebionite") over whether he was an atheist. Now Ebionite was obviously a troll, and a foul-mouthed one at that, and deserved to be blocked. But he really got Cons worked up. Cons vaped (oversighted, "burned the evidence") the discussion '''23 times in 51 minutes'''. I didn't save the stuff (I no longer log Cons's goings-on in detail) but the gist of the argument was the idea that Tillman could not have been an atheist because Cons knows that "No atheist would do [XYZ]." All this in spite of statements by ''people that knew Mr. Tillman personally.''<br />
<br />
Sorry Cons, but whether someone is an atheist does not depend on, and is in fact totally unrelated to, '''what goes on inside YOUR head'''. And the fact that you say "there are no good reasons to be an atheist" does not mean that there are no atheists in the world. It just means that you have not thought this through. There are atheists in this world. I know a number of them.<br />
<br />
==September 23, 2015, in which Cons leaves a note on my talk page about "User: Math" and then vapes it==<br />
Oh, Cons! Bad, naughty Cons! You left a note for me, and then vaped it. (You did the same on VargasMilan's talk page, telling him that you had sent him an email.) In fact, you've been doing an enormous amount of vaping lately. One might wonder whether this is because you are starting to be embarrassed about how many tiny edits it takes for you to say something. As I believe I told you elsewhere, the fix for that is to compose what you want to say in an editor, think about it, polish it into the form you want, and ''then'' upload it. I believe you said at about the same time that you were going to vape ("oversight") things more, in order to keep the Recent Changes log from getting so cluttered. Well, I'm sure you've noticed that, with the new wiki software, acts of vaping are even ''more'' visible than they were before. It just makes the problem ''worse''. I'd suggest that you go back to just editing the way you used to. The bean-counters over at ritionalwaki will continue doing their thing, of course.<br />
<br />
By the way, you shouldn't ever revert, much less vape, things on talk pages, ''especially'' users' talk pages. Talk pages should simply be archived. And I think that vaping another user's talk page is particularly rude. I wouldn't be surprised if VargasMilan was offended by what you did. (Actually, I would be surprised, since his notions of proper behavior seem to be different from mine.)<br />
<br />
Now, getting to the issue at hand, you told me about a user called "User: Math". Complete with the space after the colon that you so charmingly like to put into these things. You apparently thought I would be interested in what such a person had to say, presumably because you know that I am interested in mathematics. A quick check (removing the space, of course) showed that there is no such user at Conservapedia. You gave a web URL. I went there, and, sure enough, there is a user called "Math". So I looked around at his profile and contributions. I found [http://forum.bible-discussion.com/entry.php?1620-Does-God-Exist-Atheism-vs-Theism-vs-Agnosticism this] and [http://forum.bible-discussion.com/member.php?9587-Math&s=932a57f409ec5e0414ca90f01b6e6fc0 this (his profile)] and [http://forum.bible-discussion.com/entry.php?1148-Homosexuality-and-the-Bible this]. When I got to the last one, I thought "Aha! I understand it now! '''This''' is why Cons is interested in this guy. Homosexuality and the Bible."<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, I found no connection at all with mathematics in anything that I saw, though I admit I didn't look into every nook and cranny. You apparently thought I'd be interested in what someone with a screen name of "Math" would say. But no, I'm not interested in a fundamentalist crackpot who just happens to have chosen the name "Math" as his screen name on a crackpot backwater blog, and writes not about math but about homosexuality and the Bible.<br />
<br />
Then you also indicated that this person might have something to teach me about the [[Generalized linear model]]. So I went and refreshed my memory about this. As I recall, you once tried to win an argument (Evolution, Atheism? Who cares?) with someone by telling him that he needed to know more about the generalized linear model. And yet your edits to that article were little more than links to the statsoft web site, and showed no actual knowledge of the topic. I called you out on this, and challenged you to a debate on the subject. I was actually quite specific in one of my challenges, suggesting that we could give each other some data sets to analyze. My intention was, of course, to find out whether you knew anything about the algorithm that begins with L-M. Fortunately for you, your bunny-hole was close by.<br />
<br />
In any case, no, I don't think user "Math" at the bible discussion forum web site has anything to say to me on the subject of the generalized linear model. But my debate offer still stands. One thing you might do, short of a debate but still demonstrating some degree of mathematical erudition, would be to edit the Generalized linear model page and say, in your own words, what binomial distributions and Poisson distributions are.<br />
<br />
==Early September, 2015, in which Cons exhibits his expertise in computer network behavior, gets shot down, and then claims he is right and asks me to apologize==<br />
<br />
The exchange is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=1170098&oldid=1169987 here].<br />
<br />
Conservapedia's server experienced a serious storm of sporadic server outages. Cons weighed in with the advice "get a faster browser", and was totally shot down by knowledgeable people&mdash;AugustO, Bringreaganback, MelH, and myself. I explained in great detail why Cons's theories were incorrect. Cons thrashed around for a bit, and then cited an article in [https://askleo.com/whats_an_internal_server_error_and_how_do_i_fix_it/ the "askleo" web site]. He attempted to make that web site seem authoritative by citing its Alexa rank of about 25,000. This isn't necessary; any technically literate person can look at the web site and see for himself that Leo knows what he is talking about. Alexa ranks don't make a site more authoritative. And that's a good thing, because Conservapedia's rank is about 105,000. (By the way, ritionalwaki's rank is about 23,000, a little better than askleo.)<br />
<br />
Leo says that he is very familiar with the error. In the article, he ''repeatedly'' says that it's a server error, not affected by anything the user might do. Finally, in the "some straws to grasp at" section, he mentions some things that a user might do, including trying a different (not faster; different) browser. But he makes clear that those are very far-fetched scenarios.<br />
::::''In late January, Cons changed the phrase "including trying a different (not faster; different) browser", from the paragraph above, to use boldface and a large font, and gave the edit comment "VICTORY". I am baffled by this. The "askleo" site mentioned using a different browser, not a faster one; what Cons had suggested was a faster browser. He still seems confused about browser speed and server errors. Why he considers it a victory to call attention to this confusion by putting it in boldface and a large font is a mystery.''<br />
<br />
So, no, Cons. There is no need for me to apologize.<br />
<br />
Now one of the things that I pointed out in the exchange was that Cons was writing "word salad" (or should I say "file attribute salad") in what he wrote. The attribute specification that he gave, "-rwxr-", makes no sense, and does not appear in the page that he cites. I suggest that this "calls into question the veracity of Cons's internet research on other topics as well." The significance of this is that it shows that Cons ''can't even cut-and-paste accurately from another web page.'' He just makes things up. Why does that call his veracity on other topics into question? Because he writes very prolifically on a number of subjects (atheism, homosexuality, bestiality, Richard Dawkins, etc), pretending to back up what he is saying with references to things on the internet. I rarely look at the cited articles; I just take Cons's word for it that the person said that. And I'm not an expert on these topics (especially bestiality). I have to take the author's word for it. But if Cons just makes things up, I can't.<br />
<br />
Postscript: In late September, Cons added a note to Talk:Main_Page, thanking Andy for fixing the sporadic outage problem, and pointing out that he no longer gets the errors. The rest of us had noticed that things were working normally weeks earlier. For some reason, Cons must have had second thoughts about his note, because he vaped it. In fact, he committed 8 acts of vaping of this page in late September, some of them probably to other people's edits; I didn't note them in time. One of the vapings was of a routine archiving.<br />
<br />
PostPostscript: At 12:59, 26 September, Cons put the note thanking Andy back in again, this time on Andy's talk page.<br />
<br />
==March, 2015, On the Curious Matter of Putting ''Ferris Bueller's Day Off'' in italics==<br />
<br />
At 15:04, 28 March, [[User:ConsMovies]] made an edit to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=prev&oldid=1142798 the "Greatest Conservative Movies" page] correcting the italicization of the title of ''Ferris Bueller's Day Off'', along with 3 other movies (''The Goonies'', ''God's Not Dead'', and ''Man of Steel''.) Cons blocked him 1 minute later. ConsMovies' edits in general were of a somewhat provocative and snarky nature, but movie titles are generally in italics on that page, and his edit was correct. Cons reverted the edit 3 minutes after that, so that those movie titles are no longer in italics.<br />
<br />
I complained about this on Andy's talk page on March 12. There was a long discussion on this topic, as seen [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive59#ConsMovies here].<br />
<br />
An interesting (to me, at least, as a "Cons-watcher") thing to note about that discussion is that, from looking at the history log, Cons twice '''burned down (completely deleted) Andy Schlafly's talk page, and recreated it''', once at 23:21, 12 March, and once at 14:21, 13 March! He had apparently made some edits that he realized were inappropriate, and needed to cover his tracks. He has since then learned to use more sophisticated techniques to "vape" embarrassing material.<br />
<br />
As of this writing, the errors in the 4 movie titles are still there!<br />
<br />
:Breaking news: At 22:03, 7 February 2016, the page finally got fixed. Congratulations to [[User:Northwest]].<br />
<br />
==A note on the second law of thermodynamics==<br />
<br />
There seems to be a good deal of confusion and unclear writing in the article.<br />
<br />
The subject of thermodynamics, including the second law, was well established during the 19<sup>th</sup> century, by such people as Carnot, Gibbs, Clausius, Clapeyron, Maxwell, Helmholtz, and Thompson (Lord Kelvin). This long predates the advent of quantum mechanics. The subject of statistical mechanics, and the "randomness" or "uncertainty" were well understood. It does not depend on the uncertainty (the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle") of quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
There are two generally recognized types of "perpetual motion machine." A "perpetual motion machine of the first kind", which is what people generally mean when they use this term, is one that violates conservation of energy. Since the first law of thermodynamics is just conservation of energy, such a machine would violate the first law.<br />
<br />
Such a perpetual motion machine is generally taken to mean one that actively gives out nonzero energy (you can see ads for these things on the internet<ref>http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/</ref><ref>http://www.fuellesspower.com/</ref><ref>http://www.magniwork.com/</ref>), rather than one that simply holds its own, even though a machine that holds its own, that is, never runs down, could obviously be considered a "perpetual motion machine."<br />
<br />
Entities that hold their own and never run down actually do exist. Atoms are examples of them. The electrons orbiting the nucleus, if they are in their ground state, never stop. They never lose energy at all. (OK, the fact that they never lose energy depends on quantum mechanics, and I said above that quantum mechanics isn't involved, but the radiation from accelerating charges was unknown when thermodynamics was formulated.) Other things that never stop are quantum-mechanical harmonic oscillators, and gas molecules in their random motion. The latter was central to the kinetic theory that led to the development of thermodynamics. That is, the people developing thermodynamics were aware of the perpetual, never running down, nature of gas molecules. They postulated, correctly, that gas molecule collisions are perfectly elastic and never lose energy. They really are "perpetual motion machines."<br />
<br />
The second law of thermodynamics relates to a more obscure fictional device, a "perpetual motion machine of the second kind." This would be something that violates the second law by causing heat to travel, without introduction of energy from an external source, from a colder body to a warmer one. In fact, it can be shown (and was shown in the 19<sup>th</sup> century), that any heat engine more efficient than that required by Carnot's law is impossible, because it would permit the construction of a machine that moved heat from a colder body to a warmer one.<br />
<br />
From looking at the edit history of the article, there seems to be something of an edit war involving an insistence that the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine be described using the word "derail". This is an extremely unhelpful word, suggesting a similarity with a railroad train running off its tracks, and seems to be an attempt to evoke the commonsense notion of macroscopic mechanical devices wearing out due to friction. The second law is actually very clear in what it states and does not state. The article also muddies the thinking by including a folksy and cute, but woefully imprecise, layman's description by a famous science fiction author. While it is true that a person's room will tend to get messy if not attended to, and shuffling a deck of cards leads to more disorder, this is related to statistics, and involves an entropy change that is utterly minuscule compared with what goes on in thermodynamics. The "intelligent intervention" that the article describes (cleaning up the room, or sorting the cards) is statistically infeasible in the thermodynamics case. In fact, the scientists formulating the second law of thermodynamics considered this, in the form of a "Maxwell's demon", and showed that it was impossible.<br />
<br />
The claim that the second law of thermodynamics disproves relativity or evolution is too preposterous to reply to.<br />
<br />
When I get the time, I will probably write some articles on thermodynamics elsewhere on the internet.<br />
<br />
==My Past Contributions==<br />
<br />
I have contributed to the following articles. Some contributions were minor, but most were major, and many of these articles were created by me. Some got moved from my "sandbox" pages into article space by other people.<br />
<br />
Algebra, Joseph-Louis Lagrange, exponent of "r" in Newtonian gravity, Calc3.1/2/3/4/5, tensor, wave equation, e (mathematics), vector, vector space, vector field, conservative vector field, irrotational vector field, Maxwell's equations, Hodge star, exterior derivative, Cramer's rule, Riemann integral, Green's theorem, dense subset, limit (mathematics), boolean algebra, mathematical paradoxes, function, complex analytic function, continuity, countable, group, real number, rational number, complex number, Cauchy sequence, Dedekind cut, bijection, injection, surjection, ham sandwich theorem, two-pancacke theorem, divergence, curl, cross product, dot product, infinity, functor, continuous function, Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem, principle of induction, general relativity, real analysis, Pierre Simon Laplace, diagonalization.<br />
<br />
==My Future Plans==<br />
<br />
This section . I may need to consult with some sysops on this. Fixing the [[Compass and straightedge]] article is an important item.<br />
<br />
The comment above, about consulting with sysops, referred to the fact that I was blocked and reverted by Daniel Pulido after an earlier attempt to discuss math, so I wanted to contact him by email to get his approval. But he has himself been blocked, so maybe things are OK.<br />
<br />
While there are a huge number of things that need in the mathematics area, I've picked out four that would be good to on. I want to collaborate on these with Ed Poor, who is the other math expert currently around, so I have placed and extensive discussion on [[User_talk:Ed_Poor|his talk page]], which see. I'm also going to bring this to the attention of [[User:JamesWilson]], who may be another up-and-coming math contributor.<br />
<br />
*[[Compass and straightedge]]&mdash;This has been rescued from "parody hell", but it needs much more work to present the material in a way that is logical and understandable to the target audience.<br />
<br />
*Elementary [[Algebra]]&mdash;This has been a topic of discussion between me and Ed for quite some time, generally centering on the question of "how do you explain to an elementary student what the question 'x+3 = 7' is really asking?"<br />
<br />
*Peano axioms&mdash;The fundamental logical basis for all of arithmetic. I dimly recall a discussion between Ed and someone else on this topic; it didn't seem to get anywhere. It is an extremely fascinating topic for the target audience!<br />
<br />
*[[Center]]&mdash;This has been a disaster for a long time. I really don't know how to write the "headline" sentence for this; that is, what's the first thing you say about what the "center" of a geometrical shape is? I solicit any insight that Ed (or anyone else) can provide.<br />
<br />
==More thoughts on math==<br />
Since there is a renewal of interest in writing mathematical articles, I'd like for people to feel free to use my [[User_talk:SamHB|talk page]] for discussion of math articles, if they so desire. I may be able to offer advice or guidance, or suggest fruitful topics.<br />
<br />
People should also feel free to discuss math writing in general, including the topic that is near and dear to me&mdash;setting the right educational level for our expected audience. I only ask that:<br />
*Do not tell me we need extremely advanced articles at the college level. See [[Talk:Algebra|here]] for the latest example of misguided advice along these lines. Just don't ask. I'm not interested.<br />
*If criticizing my or anyone else's writing level or style, please provide a link to a sample of your own writing on the same or equivalent topic and at the same depth, so that we can see just what you have in mind.<br />
<br />
==I see AlanS's talk page has finally been deleted==<br />
He seems to have made his last contribution on December 26, 2008. He was blocked at 19:19 on December 31, two minutes after I was blocked for being a sock of him. I never knew who he was. Looking through his block log, he seems to have gotten into fights with sysops and admins to an astounding degree, suggesting that he was, at heart, just a troublemaker. He seems to have dabbled in "light science" topics, but our paths don't seem to have crossed.<br />
<br />
==The Bugler/LowKey incident==<br />
<br />
User "Bugler" was an extremely brutish user who climbed the status ladder at Conservapedia rather quickly, developing a reputation for blocking people and generally being destructive. He very nearly made it to "administrator", the rank currently held by only a few people&mdash;Andy, Ed Poor, Karajou, JPatt, Conservative, and a few other inactive people. At the end of the process, while being interviewed by Andy and asked his real name, he apparently said it was "Brian Ugler", thereby unmasking himself as a vandal and parodist of the worst kind. He was immediately banished, of course.<br />
<br />
User "LowKey" was one of Bugler's frequent victims, and complained at length on his user page, before Bugler's fall. Lowkey's user page, as of 12 January, 2009, may be found [[User:SamHB/BuglerLowKey|here]]. I am saving it because it is in danger of being vaped.<br />
<br />
==Helpful stuff==<br />
===To mark a page for deletion===<br />
Use <nowiki>{{Delete Notice}}</nowiki><br />
The explanation is not an argument; it is in the following text.<br />
<br />
Or <nowiki>{{speedy}}</nowiki> to explicitly diss it for being "obvious vandalism, sarcastic mockery, or inappropriate".<br />
<br />
Also <nowiki>{{db|whatever}}</nowiki><br />
The explanation is in the argument. This method seems less effective at being noticed.<br />
<br />
===To make a nice quotation block===<br />
{{cquote|blah blah}}<br />
<br />
Indented quote, but without the big quote marks. (You can get pretty much the same thing with colon.)<br />
<blockquote>blah blah</blockquote><br />
<br />
===To put in footnotes etc.===<br />
See [[How to put links and footnotes into your articles]].<br />
<br />
===To welcome a new user===<br />
<nowiki>{{welcome|sig=SamHB}}</nowiki><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gay_bashing&diff=1450039Talk:Gay bashing2018-09-23T17:58:53Z<p>SamHB: Where did you find that? It's on the internet (specifically, youtube), so it must be true.</p>
<hr />
<div>The term "gay bashing", in the real world, refers to physical violence against gay people, but this article is mostly about violence committed by gay people. I guess you can redefine terms as you see fit, but that doesn't make this site very "trustworthy," at least for people who live in the real world. [[User:FredJ|FredJ]] ([[User talk:FredJ|talk]]) 00:53, 23 September 2018 (EDT)<br />
:Wikipedia defines gay bashing as "Gay bashing and gay bullying is verbal or physical abuse against a person who is perceived by the aggressor to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, including persons who are actually heterosexual."<br />
<br />
:It is not Conservapedia's fault that most gay bashing is done by homosexuals.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 03:50, 23 September 2018 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Where did you find that statistic? (And isn't Wikipedia supposed to be unreliable?) [[User:FredJ|FredJ]] ([[User talk:FredJ|talk]]) 08:46, 23 September 2018 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::You presumably know that the internet is a big place, and one can find statements in support of just about any viewpoint, however outlandish or nonsensical-by-the-standards-of-normal-sensible-people they may be. If one spends huge amounts of time scouring the internet for wacky statements, one will find them.<br />
::::"Seek, and ye shall find" -- Matthew 7:7. (Am I saying the internet is like God? No.)<br />
:::There are a few people at Conservapedia who frequently do this, User:Conservative ("Cons") perhaps foremost among them. I still occasionally find treasure troves of this sort of thing, like [https://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_Attention_atheists:_You_don%27t_own_the_internet this thing about someone named "cultofdusty", who posted some silly thing on youtube about how atheists own the internet]. If a normal person came across such tripe they would simply move on, after promising themselves not to spend so much time clicking on asinine youtube videos.<br />
<br />
:::On another topic, please be aware that posting <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags at Conservapedia almost never ends well. Countering misinformation is not easy. Choose your battles carefully.<br />
:::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:58, 23 September 2018 (EDT)</div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Combinatorics&diff=1449757Talk:Combinatorics2018-09-22T02:51:28Z<p>SamHB: </p>
<hr />
<div>So I want to add a section on the choose function, but as you can see the choose function isn't working<br />
<br />
:<math>\binom{n}{r} = \frac{n!}{(n-r)!\ r!}</math><br />
<br />
I looked online and \binom{n}{r} the only way I can find to do it. Do we need a software update? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:32, 30 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:try http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Formula<br />
<br />
::Thanks. For whatever reason, ''\binom'' wasn't working, but I figured out a way around it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Seems to work fine now. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 22:51, 21 September 2018 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Categories ==<br />
<br />
I have put this back into the mathematics category. While having something be in two categories that are close relatives of each other is, in general, a bad idea, this is an exception. There are a number of such exceptions, particularly in the science and math area. See https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_to_create_and_maintain_high-quality_articles#Category_references, particularly the part about "But you need to use your judgment here." Combinatorics is a completely reasonable thing for someone to see if they are browsing for mathematical topics. They don't need to know that it is related to probability and statistics. In fact, combinatorics ''isn't necessarily related to probability and statistics''. It is a mathematical topic in its own right. By contrast, the recent change to the two-pancake theorem and the ham sandwich theorem was reasonable. Those two things are pretty specific, and a person browsing for topics in mathematics doesn't need to see them. (Actually, they are not theorems of topology so much as theorems of advanced mathematical analysis and measure theory, but this is the best we can do.) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 22:49, 21 September 2018 (EDT)</div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Combinatorics&diff=1449755Talk:Combinatorics2018-09-22T02:49:37Z<p>SamHB: /* Categories */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>So I want to add a section on the choose function, but as you can see the choose function isn't working<br />
<br />
:<math> = \binom{n}{r} \frac{n!}{(n-r)!r!}</math><br />
<br />
I looked online and \binom{n}{r} the only way I can find to do it. Do we need a software update? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:32, 30 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:try http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Formula<br />
<br />
::Thanks. For whatever reason, ''\binom'' wasn't working, but I figured out a way around it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Categories ==<br />
<br />
I have put this back into the mathematics category. While having something be in two categories that are close relatives of each other is, in general, a bad idea, this is an exception. There are a number of such exceptions, particularly in the science and math area. See https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_to_create_and_maintain_high-quality_articles#Category_references, particularly the part about "But you need to use your judgment here." Combinatorics is a completely reasonable thing for someone to see if they are browsing for mathematical topics. They don't need to know that it is related to probability and statistics. In fact, combinatorics ''isn't necessarily related to probability and statistics''. It is a mathematical topic in its own right. By contrast, the recent change to the two-pancake theorem and the ham sandwich theorem was reasonable. Those two things are pretty specific, and a person browsing for topics in mathematics doesn't need to see them. (Actually, they are not theorems of topology so much as theorems of advanced mathematical analysis and measure theory, but this is the best we can do.) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 22:49, 21 September 2018 (EDT)</div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Combinatorics&diff=1449750Combinatorics2018-09-22T02:27:37Z<p>SamHB: Should be in main mathematics category also. See talk.</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Combinatorics''' is a field of [[mathematics]] devoted to the study of counting elements in a set, and mathematical relations that describe their properties. This field is "[[discrete mathematics|discrete]]", meaning it deals with non-[[continuous]] properties. Combinatorics is very useful in the field of discrete [[probability]] theory.<br />
<br />
==Combinatorial Functions==<br />
Many functions used in combinatorics deal with how to count or arrange numbers. These rules are all based on the ''basic principle of counting'', which states that for any two groups of objects of size ''m'' and ''n'', there are ''m • n'' possible combinations.<ref name="ross">Ross, Sheldon. "A First Course in Probability 7e". Pearson Education: 2006.</ref> For example, If you have 10 different marbles and 8 different cups, there are 80 (10 • 8) ways to put a marble into a cup.<br />
<br />
===Permutations===<br />
A ''permutation'' is a certain way to order a group of objects. For example, ''bac'' is one permutations of the letters ''a'', ''b'', and ''c''. For three objects it is easy to see that there are 6 total permutations by simply writing out all of the combinations (''abc'', ''acb'', ''bac'', ''bca'', ''cab'', and ''cba'').<br />
<br />
For larger groups of objects it is harder, if not impossible, to write out all combinations. However a simple formula can be derived from the basic principle of counting, which states that, for a group of ''n'' objects, there are ''n!'' ("n [[factorial]]") possible ways to order those objects. So for our above example, we can calculate that there are 6 possible ways (3 • 2 • 1) to order three objects.<br />
<br />
For groups of indistinguishable objects, you must divide the total number of redundant ways to permute the objects:<br />
<br />
:<math>\frac {n!}{n_1! n_2! \cdot \cdot \cdot n_r!}</math>, where ''n'' is the total number of objects, and ''n<sub>1</sub>'' through ''n<sub>r</sub>'' are the total number of each type of objects within the group.<br />
<br />
For example, the letters ''p'' and ''e'' in the word "pepper" are indistinguishable from one another. There are 6 total letters, which are comprised of 3 ''p'''s, 2 ''e'''s, and 1 ''r''. The total number of permutations would thus be 6! / (3 ! 2! 1!), or 60.<br />
<br />
===Combinations===<br />
It is often useful to find out how many groups of ''r'' objects can be created out of a group of ''n'' objects. This can be calculated from a function called "choose" (read aloud as "n choose r"):<br />
<br />
:<math>\begin{pmatrix} n \\ r \end{pmatrix} = \frac{n!}{(n-r)!r!}</math><br />
<br />
For example, take a race which has 10 competitors. There are 10 choose 3 different combinations of medal winners (that is, racers who get either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place), which is a total of 10! / (10 - 3)! • 3! = 10! / 7! • 3! = 120 different combinations.<br />
<br />
The numbers <math>\begin{pmatrix} n \\ r \end{pmatrix}</math> are also called binomial coefficients because of the [[binomial expansion]]:<br />
<br />
:<math>(x + y)^n = \sum_{r = 0}^n \begin{pmatrix} n \\ r \end{pmatrix} x^r y^{n-r}</math><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Probability and Statistics]]<br />
[[Category:Mathematics]]</div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Category:Calculus&diff=1449745Category:Calculus2018-09-22T02:12:52Z<p>SamHB: Be sure the "mother page" is called out.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Main (category)|Calculus}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Mathematics]]</div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:SamHB&diff=1449285User:SamHB2018-09-20T04:29:54Z<p>SamHB: /* The current occupant of the White House */ I must have left this one out.</p>
<hr />
<div>Archives: [[User:SamHB/Archive 2|2]] [[User:SamHB/Archive 3|3]] [[User:SamHB/Archive 4|4]]<br />
<br />
<br><br />
<center><b align="center" style="width: 70%; background:#000;color:#eee;border: 4px gold solid; font-size: 20px;">INACTIVE FOR 66 DAYS (until August 28, 2018)</b><br><br><br></center><br />
<br />
<br><br />
<center><b align="center" style="width: 70%; background:#000;color:#eee;border: 4px gold solid; font-size: 20px;">INACTIVE FOR 66 DAYS (until May 20, 2018)</b><br><br><br></center><br />
<br />
<br><br />
<center><b align="center" style="width: 70%; background:#000;color:#eee;border: 4px gold solid; font-size: 20px;">INACTIVE FOR 66 DAYS (until February 16, 2018)</b><br><br><br></center><br />
<br />
<br><br />
<center><b align="center" style="width: 70%; background:#000;color:#eee;border: 4px gold solid; font-size: 20px;">INACTIVE FOR 66 DAYS (until November 19, 2017)</b><br><br><br></center><br />
<br />
<br><br />
<center><b align="center" style="width: 70%; background:#000;color:#eee;border: 4px gold solid; font-size: 25px;">NO-CLAPTRAP ZONE</b></center><br />
<br />
<center><b align="center" style="width: 70%; background:#000;color:#eee;border: 4px gold solid; font-size: 20px;">THIS USER HAS ZERO TOLERANCE FOR NONSENSE</b><br><br><br></center><br />
<br />
<br />
I also have zero tolerance for<br />
*Idiotic behavior.<br />
*Sycophancy. I note in particular those people that try to take Andy's side in controversies over relativity, but run away when asked questions that require actual understanding of the subject. It's really very transparent. I've developed good "spider sense" on this issue. More on this topic below.<br />
*Childish behavior. Children should be seen and not <s>heard</s> given block authority.<br />
<br />
<br />
So here are some essays that eschew claptrap:<br />
<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Attempts to prove E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E%3Dmc²]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Biblical scientific foreknowledge]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to the "Calming the Storm" essay]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]<br />
*[[Essay:Radiometric dating - a non-Creationist Perspective]]<br />
*[[Essay:Commentary on Conservapedia's article on the second law of thermodynamics]]<br />
*[[Essay:Pussy Riot - an Anti-Putin Perspective]]<br />
What's that last one doing here? Funny you should ask. It's really just the same as the main [[Pussy Riot]] article, but it removes the claim that only leftists oppose Vladimir Putin. A look at the history of the main article will show what's going on. Apparently there are people here who think that opposing a thug who has his political opponents murdered in the street while security cameras mysteriously malfunction is something only "liberals" and "leftists" do. I would like to think that opposition to such a person would be something liberals and conservatives could all agree on. But not here.<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>'''Anyone who wants to contact me may do so at sam4557@gmail.com.'''</center><br />
<br />
At present, I make edits to those things that I believe I can improve (mostly [[science]] and [[math]]) and stay away from those things that are utterly hopeless (like [[evolution]], [[creationism]], and why year 20XX is going to be the worst year ever for evolution or [[atheism]] or whatever.) I also (believe it or not, and some people don't) try to encourage well-intentioned new users, and try to make this a more orderly and friendly place. I also engage in a lot of good-natured banter with Cons. I also occasionally find myself amused by the way [[User:VargasMilan|some users]] seem to [[User_talk:SamHB#Apology|stalk]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page&diff=1110822&oldid=1110821 me].<br />
<br />
I am seriously "behind the curve" on the latest high-tech gadgetry. I own a laptop computer (several of them in fact) and am quite literate about actual computer science. I do not have "FIOS" or any similar things; just plain cable internet. I do not use things like Skype or Instant Messaging (or Tinder, or Facebook, or SnapChat, or Pinterest, or Twitter ..., though I have, under duress, used IM at work. However, I am capable of high-bandwidth communication with people through email, using attachments when the information transfer quantity requires it. People desiring to contact me are strongly encouraged to use the email account given above.<br />
<br />
In addition to the email above, I have accounts, all under the same name (SamHB) at Wikipedia, Wikiversity, <s>Ameriwiki (I am an administrator)</s>, and that other place that rhymes with "national picky".<br />
<br />
----<br />
There is a section about the Daily Beast article on my [[User_talk:SamHB|talk page]]. It was originally on mainpage talk, and seems to have disappeared.<br />
----<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
A few words about vandalism and parody in science and math articles. There's a lot of it. I have reverted a lot of it. Just in the last few weeks I cleaned up some parody in the articles on Calcium and on Gabriel's horn. (Well, in the latter case I just pointed it out.) ''Both parodists' accounts are still active.''<br />
<br />
Furthermore, I would like to point out that there is a lot more parody in math and science articles. It's just too much for one person to fix.<br />
<br />
<br><br />
<br />
{{Userboxtop}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#DC143C |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=[[Image:Stop_hand.svg|45px]] |info=<center><big>This user has been blocked '''20''' times.</big></center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=SP |info=This user knows how to use "Show preview".}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:Atom.jpg|45px]] |info=<center>This user knows that '''[http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_01 evolution]''' explains the origin of species.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |#000|#AfA|[[image:earthsat.jpeg|45px]]|This user knows that the Earth is billions of years old according to conservative scientific measurements.}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:Universe_expansion.png|45px]] |info=<center>This user knows that the '''Big Bang''' explains the origin of the Universe.</center>}}<br />
{{User Protestant}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFBBBB |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:UserCross.jpg|30px]] |info=<center>This user respects your right to be a fundamentalist, but does not necessarily accept whatever scientific conclusions you might draw from that.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#ff5050 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=[[Image:John McCain official portrait 2009.jpg|50px]] |info=<center>This user considers [[John McCain]] to be a war hero, patriot, great American, great Senator, and great Republican. He is ''not'' a RINO.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[File:Horse picture.jpg|45px]] |info=<center>While this user deplores deviant and perverted sexual behavior, it is not a [[Talk:Air_pressure|source of embarrassment, or a sore point]], with him.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|45px]] |info=<center>This user knows that [[relativity]] provides a good explanation for physical phenomena at scales for which field theories are applicable.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|45px]] |info=<center>This user knows that [[relativity]] provides a good explanation for the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|45px]] |info=<center>This user knows that [[relativity]] provides a good explanation for the result of the Pound-Rebka experiment.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|45px]] |info=<center>This user knows that [[relativity]] provides a good explanation for the connection between radioactive decay energies and the precise isotopic weights that are summarized in periodic table charts hanging in science classrooms all over the world.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|45px]] |info=<center>This user knows that [[relativity]] provides a good explanation for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|45px]] |info=<center>This user knows that [[relativity]] provides a good explanation for the observed frequency anomalies in GPS satellites.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|45px]] |info=<center>This user knows that [[relativity]] provides a good explanation for the "frame-dragging" effects observed by the "gravity probe B" satellite.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|45px]] |info=<center>This user knows that [[relativity]] provides a good explanation for the observed behavior of pulsar PSR_B1913_16.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|45px]] |info=<center>This user knows that [[relativity]] provides a good explanation for the 2015 and 2017 observations of gravitational waves emitted by merging black holes.</center>}}<br />
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#FFA07A |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=<s>Breitbart</s> |info=This user does not support Breitbart News or its lies, bias, and [[fake news]].}}<br />
{{Userboxbottom}}<br />
<br />
==John McCain, an American hero==<br />
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="margin:0em 0em 1em 0em;"<br />
| style="vertical-align:top; background-color:Black;" |<br />
<div style="padding:2em 2em 2em 2em;"><br />
[[File:John McCain official portrait 2009.jpg|thumbnail|400px|center]]<br />
</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
His farewell statement, written just prior to his death:<br />
<br />
:“My fellow Americans, whom I have gratefully served for sixty years, and especially my fellow Arizonans,<br />
<br />
:“Thank you for the privilege of serving you and for the rewarding life that service in uniform and in public office has allowed me to lead. I have tried to serve our country honorably. I have made mistakes, but I hope my love for America will be weighed favorably against them.<br />
<br />
:“I have often observed that I am the luckiest person on Earth. I feel that way even now as I prepare for the end of my life. I have loved my life, all of it. I have had experiences, adventures and friendships enough for ten satisfying lives, and I am so thankful. Like most people, I have regrets. But I would not trade a day of my life, in good or bad times, for the best day of anyone else’s.<br />
<br />
:“I owe that satisfaction to the love of my family. No man ever had a more loving wife or children he was prouder of than I am of mine. And I owe it to America. To be connected to America’s causes ― liberty, equal justice, respect for the dignity of all people ― brings happiness more sublime than life’s fleeting pleasures. Our identities and sense of worth are not circumscribed but enlarged by serving good causes bigger than ourselves.<br />
<br />
:“‘Fellow Americans’ ― that association has meant more to me than any other. I lived and died a proud American. We are citizens of the world’s greatest republic, a nation of ideals, not blood and soil. We are blessed and are a blessing to humanity when we uphold and advance those ideals at home and in the world. We have helped liberate more people from tyranny and poverty than ever before in history. We have acquired great wealth and power in the process.<br />
<br />
:“We weaken our greatness when we confuse our patriotism with tribal rivalries that have sown resentment and hatred and violence in all the corners of the globe. We weaken it when we hide behind walls, rather than tear them down, when we doubt the power of our ideals, rather than trust them to be the great force for change they have always been.<br />
<br />
:“We are three-hundred-and-twenty-five million opinionated, vociferous individuals. We argue and compete and sometimes even vilify each other in our raucous public debates. But we have always had so much more in common with each other than in disagreement. If only we remember that and give each other the benefit of the presumption that we all love our country we will get through these challenging times. We will come through them stronger than before. We always do.<br />
<br />
:“Ten years ago, I had the privilege to concede defeat in the election for president. I want to end my farewell to you with the heartfelt faith in Americans that I felt so powerfully that evening.<br />
<br />
:"I feel it powerfully still.<br />
<br />
:“Do not despair of our present difficulties but believe always in the promise and greatness of America, because nothing is inevitable here. Americans never quit. We never surrender. We never hide from history. We make history.<br />
<br />
:“Farewell, fellow Americans. God bless you, and God bless America.”<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
From an opinion column in the ''Washington Post'', by Stephen Wrage, a professor in the political science department at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis. The piece reflects the author’s views and not those of the Navy or any other organization. It refers to the U.S. Naval Academy graduation on May 25, 2018, where President Trump will speak, and to emails he has received from several midshipmen, such as:<br />
<br />
:"We are under no obligation to clap for Donald Trump. Trump wants the image of young service members cheering him on and we can deny him that image."<br />
:"We are taught selflessness; he practices narcissism."<br />
:"If he is a role model, it is only in the exact opposite."<br />
<br />
Wrage goes on:<br />
:"... There is no question, however, how the officers whom the midshipmen report to will behave: They will offer the quiet deference they owe to the office of the president. They speak with full academic freedom in their classrooms, but they maintain military decorum at a ceremony."<br />
<br />
:"Decades later, officers remember their commissioning. One Marine I know recalled whole passages he heard from the speech at his graduation in 1993, 25 years ago. That year, John McCain came to speak and, as they say, he killed it."<br />
<br />
:McCain told them<br />
{{cquote|As ensigns and second lieutenants, the character of the young sailors and Marines entrusted to your care will be formed in large part by their appreciation of your character. You are where leadership begins. You are the models who stand just past the sergeants and chiefs, and those under your command will derive from your behavior the direction of their own lives. Their firm respect for you, on which their lives and our security will depend, will be determined by how faithfully you keep, on duty and off, the code you learned here.}}<br />
<br />
:At least one Marine in the crowd will recall the way McCain closed his speech:<br />
{{cquote|I will go to my grave in gratitude to my Creator for allowing me to stand witness to such courage and honor. And so will you. My time is slipping by. Yours is fast approaching. You will know where your duty lies. You will know. God bless you. Semper Fi. Fair winds and following seas.}}<br />
<br />
===Moral clarity===<br />
"The administration’s current family separation policy is an affront to the decency of the American people, and contrary to principles and values upon which our nation was founded. The administration has the power to rescind this policy. It should do so now." -- John McCain, Jun 18, 2018.<br />
<br />
===Other opinions===<br />
"He's dying anyway" -- Kelly Sadler, White House aide, May 10 2018, on McCain's opposition to a nominee for CIA director.<br />
<br />
"Torture Is Good, ‘It Worked on John McCain'" -- Thomas McInerney, Fox News contributor, May 10, 2018.<br />
<br />
===Sarah Palin===<br />
I do not agree with the decision not to invite Ms. Palin to the funeral. While I strongy disagree with just about everything she says, she was his running mate in an historic election. The decision was apparently made by McCain's widow.<br />
<br />
==Bible verses, Matthew 5:1-11==<br />
<br />
*And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:<br />
*And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,<br />
*Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.<br />
*Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.<br />
*Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.<br />
*Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.<br />
*Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.<br />
*Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.<br />
*Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.<br />
*Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.<br />
*Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.<br />
<br />
==Bible verses, Luke 2:7-14==<br />
<br />
:And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.<br />
:And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.<br />
:And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.<br />
:And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.<br />
:For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.<br />
:And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.<br />
:And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,<br />
:Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.<br />
<br />
==The current occupant of the White House==<br />
<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about American history.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about American government.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about compassion.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about empathy<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about forgiveness.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about contrition.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about redemption.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about Christianity.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about the Bible.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about self-control.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about ethics.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about patriotism.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about service.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about honesty.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about science.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about healthy eating.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about a healthy lifestyle.<br />
*Knows essentially nothing about exercise.<br />
*Knows very little about American geography.<br />
*Knows very little about spelling.<br />
*Knows absolutely nothing about respect for women.<br />
*Knows absolutely nothing about the sanctity of marriage.<br />
<br />
==Roy Moore==<br />
I see that that cesspool of fake news known as Breitbart.com has been accusing Beverly Nelson, one of Roy Moore's accusers, of forgery. That is, of writing the note below Mr. Moore's inscription in her yearbook and asserting that Moore wrote that note himself. I don't have time to do my usual careful analysis of what's going in on this case, but I'll just present a few web links:<br />
<br />
*[http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/08/bombshell-roy-moore-accuser-admits-forged-yearbook/ A thing in Breitbart]<br />
*[http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/08/forgery-explained-beverly-young-nelson-gloria-allred-presented-notes-roy-moores-writing/ Another]<br />
*[http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/12/called-gloria-allred-accuser-admits-tampered-roy-moores-yearbook-signature-video/ More fake news, this time from The Gateway Pundit.]<br />
*[http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/09/politics/roy-moore-accuser-yearbook-notation/index.html The note beneath the inscription was hers; she never said it wasn't.]<br />
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20171208170804/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/08/roy-moore-accuser-admits-forged-part-yearbook-inscription-attributed-to-alabama-senate-candidate.html Fox news got caught up in this too. (Page is from the internet archive.)]<br />
*[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fox-news-corrects-story-claiming-roy-moore-accuser-forged-candidates-signature_us_5a2c1d58e4b0a290f051304f But Fox news had the integrity to correct their story.]<br />
<br />
==America==<br />
::''This little bit of patriotism was inspired by a [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SamHB#A_liberal_is_wanted_for_an_online_dialogue recent discussion on my talk page].''<br />
::''The reader's attention is particularly drawn to the last two lines of the second stanza.''<br />
<br />
:O beautiful for spacious skies,<br />
:For amber waves of grain,<br />
:For purple mountain majesties<br />
:Above the fruited plain!<br />
:America! America!<br />
:God shed His grace on thee<br />
:And crown thy good with brotherhood<br />
:From sea to shining sea!<br />
<br /><br />
:O beautiful for pilgrim feet,<br />
:Whose stern, impassioned stress<br />
:A thoroughfare for freedom beat<br />
:Across the wilderness!<br />
:America! America!<br />
:God mend thine every flaw,<br />
:Confirm thy soul in self-control,<br />
:Thy liberty in law!<br />
<br /><br />
:O beautiful for heroes proved<br />
:In liberating strife,<br />
:Who more than self their country loved<br />
:And mercy more than life!<br />
:America! America!<br />
:May God thy gold refine,<br />
:Till all success be nobleness,<br />
:And every gain divine!<br />
<br /><br />
:O beautiful for patriot dream<br />
:That sees beyond the years<br />
:Thine alabaster cities gleam<br />
:Undimmed by human tears!<br />
:America! America!<br />
:God shed His grace on thee<br />
:And crown thy good with brotherhood<br />
:From sea to shining sea!<br />
<br />
==People who write about relativity but don't know what they are talking about==<br />
I occasionally run into people wishing to weigh in on relativity, opposing it. This of course sets off my sycophancy alarm. They seem to be agreeing with Andy with very little understanding of the topic. When asked for an explanation, they typically run away. To be clear, Andy is the only person I know of that can communicate relativity denial with any degree of effectiveness or erudition; all others that I have seen are either sycophants, vandals, or just plain troublemakers. (Though I'm openminded enough to allow that another articulate relativity denier could show up in the future.)<br />
<br />
Arguments for or against relativity are conducted at a rather sophisticated level here at Conservapedia. The topic is not for amateurs.<br />
<br />
Here is my homework assignment for people wishing to join the anti-relativity bandwagon. Read the following articles:<br />
*[[Theory of relativity]]<br />
*[[Talk:Theory of relativity]]<br />
*[[General theory of relativity]]<br />
*[[E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Talk:E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Talk:E=mc²/Archive 1]]<br />
*[[Talk:E=mc²/Archive 2]]<br />
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity/archive2]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Talk:Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Attempts to prove E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Talk:Attempts to prove E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Attempts to prove E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Talk:Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This one is particularly recommended for showing what happens when someone gets involved in the topic while being totally out of his depth.<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[User talk:Aschlafly/Archive56]]<br />
*[[User talk:Aschlafly/Archive59]]<br />
*[[User talk:Aschlafly/Archive60]]<br />
*[[Community Portal/Archive 1]]<br />
*[[Cockcroft and Walton Experiment]]<br />
*[[Talk:Cockcroft and Walton Experiment]]<br />
*[[Nuclear transmutation]]<br />
*[[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]]<br />
*[[Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]<br />
*[[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?]]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/space,_time,_and_the_Lorentz_transform Lecture 1 from Wikiversity]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/momentum Lecture 2 from Wikiversity]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/energy Lecture 3 from Wikiversity]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/E_%3D_mc%C2%B2 Lecture 4 from Wikiversity]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/spacetime_diagrams_and_vectors Lecture 5 from Wikiversity]<br />
<br />
==How '''NOT''' to proselytize==<br />
[[User:Conservative]] ("Cons") has the laudable goal of introducing people to Christianity on the pages of this wiki. However, I don't think the incredibly obsessive way he does this is likely to be effective.<br />
*He seems obsessed with svelte Indian Christian ladies and their graceful dancing style, as though that should persuade people to embrace Christianity. (Many references in [[Essay:_Indian_Christian_culture_is_better_than_low_class_atheist_%22culture%22|this article]].)<br />
::"Well, gosh. Those Indian Christian ladies are so graceful, that must show that Jesus is the son of God. I'd better join a church right away."<br />
*He also seems obsessed with Penn Jillette's lack of grace when dancing the "Walrus Slide", and with the fact that Ken Ham likes to yodel. (See [[Essay:_Penn_Jillette%27s_walrus_slide_vs._thin_Indian_Christian_lady_dancers|this article, which is remarkably similar to the one cited just above]].)<br />
::"Well, gosh. Ken Ham likes to yodel when climbing the Triceratops model at the Creation Museum, and when climbing mountains. I guess that shows that the universe was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago."<br />
*He also points out that the Swiss like to yodel, [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SamHB#re:_well-intentioned_and_level-headed_people here].<br />
::"Well, gosh. The Swiss like to yodel. Jesus is lord!"<br />
*He also likes to point out, in too many places to list here, that non-Western cultures are expanding at the expense of traditional American cultures. He says this with a degree of glee that makes me wonder whose side he is on.<br />
::"Well, gosh. Non-Western societies are rapidly growing due to their high birth rate. I guess I'd better convert to Islam."<br />
*He points out the atheists aren't as good-looking as religious people [[Atheists and physical attractiveness|here]], as though there is something meaningful that we are supposed to take away from this notion.<br />
::"Well, gosh. Women don't seem to want to date me. I guess I'm ugly. I'd better join a Bible study group at my college. That will make me better-looking, and I'll get lots of dates."<br />
*And then there's [[Essay:_Militant_atheism_and_short_man's_syndrome|this]] gem.<br />
::"Well, gosh. I'm kind of short. Most women I know are taller than I am, and seem not to want to date men shorter than they are. Maybe if I go to church regularly I'll grow taller. There ''is'' a causal relationship, isn't there? It's right in the essay: "Get over it little man, shortness is a causal factor for militant atheism!"<br />
*He has also been pointing out for several years and "20XX is going to be (or already is) the worst year ever for atheism. He even made a past-tense claim about a year that is still happening [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/166#2018_was_a_TERRIBLE_year_for_militant_atheists here].<br />
::"Well, gosh. After all this, are atheists still around? How come I still see so many of them? Does the existence of God not depend on something someone once said in an elevator?"<br />
*He had recently been obsessed with potholes in British streets, even putting an article on the main page for a while. He apparently wants to use the state of British roads to make some quasi-political, quasi-religious, quasi-scientific argument.<br />
::"Well, gosh. There are potholes in streets in the UK, and Charles Darwin (more than 100 years ago) was British. I guess that means that evolution did not occur. I'm glad people can see these scientific principles so clearly."<br />
Most of his "articles" contain enormous numbers of references to other of his articles, as though that counts as a "reference".<br />
<br />
==I would really love to see [[User:Conservative]] slowly and painfully burn==<br />
his opponents in a debate.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, I'm not likely to see that, in view of his appalling lack of skill at convincing people that he is worth debating. Perhaps the most recent example is his page [[Essay: Debate challenge to new atheist Kyle Kulinski]]. Mr. Kulinski has made it very clear, in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39xlPMs3Obk this] video, that he will not debate anyone at Conservapedia, and has no respect for the way the admins marshall their arguments.<br />
<br />
There are other instances of Cons backing out when people were willing to debate him (I was actually involved in one of these.) Perhaps the most famous case was one in which a person offered to donate 12,500 British pounds to a Christian charity, but Cons backed out. The web site on which this took place cannot be named here, but one can Google the exact phrase "actually laughable collections"<br />
<br />
While Cons's debating and general rhetorical skill are appalling, there is one tactic that he is exceptionally good at&mdash;lifting quotes out of context. Probably the best example of this is the article [[Essay:_Atheist_PZ_Myers:_"I_despair_over_atheism_as_I_watch_it_burn...".]] This is, like so many of his other articles and essays, really just a collection of links to other of his articles. But it has an illustration showing a burning house, the same caption as the article itself: "Atheist PZ Myers: 'I despair over atheism as I watch it burn...'".<br />
<br />
What's in that ellipsis? Well, there is an external reference to [http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/01/30/feminism-isnt-a-side-issue-it-is-a-central-issue-in-any-movement-with-a-pretense-to-rationalism/ this] article at PZ Myers' "Pharyngula" blog. The actual quote from that article was "I despair over atheism, as I watch it burn away allies and embrace the default attitude of patronizing bro-ness." It seems to be about feminism and PZ Myers' atheism. Or something. It's actually quite boring, like most of his writing, and I haven't read it.<br />
<br />
But taking the phrase "watch it [atheism] burn away allies" and turning it into "watch it burn" is the most astonishing act of quoting out of context that I have ever seen.<br />
<br />
== Reinhold Niebuhr Quote (well, paraphrase)==<br />
<br />
{{cquote|God grant me the serenity to accept the things that are above the table of contents, the courage to change the things that are below it, and the wisdom to know the difference}}<br />
<br />
What does that refer to? It refers to the fact that someone recently added some sycophantic rubbish to the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] page. Fortunately, it was above the TOC, so I didn't have to move it. Unfortunately (fortunately, actually) AugustO is even less patient with nonsense than I am.<br />
<br />
==Never asked God for forgiveness?==<br />
<br />
{{Cquote|So help me understand why you thought God could use a man who’d said he’d never asked God for forgiveness, who serially committed adultery, who said he could grab women by the genitals, who cheated contractors and workers ... [who] didn’t even know how to say “Second Corinthians,” which he called “Two Corinthians,” and when asked for his favorite Bible verse struggled to name one until he landed on “an eye for an eye.” And you know what Jesus said about that one.|||Susan M. Shaw, Oregon State University}}<br />
<br />
==Bible verses, Matthew 6:19-21==<br />
<br />
{{cquote|Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.}}<br />
<br />
==Bible verses, Matthew 25:34-36==<br />
<br />
{{cquote|Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me, I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.}}<br />
<br />
==Bible verse, Galatians 6:7==<br />
<br />
{{cquote|Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.}}<br />
<br />
==Bible verse, Matthew 23:12==<br />
<br />
{{cquote|And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.}}<br />
<br />
==Late August, 2016, Do ants harvest? Do snakes hear?==<br />
<br />
I don't know. I have no expertise in this field.<br />
<br />
==Early March, 2016, I get blocked, and then weird things happen==<br />
<br />
I was blocked by my friend, after replacing an incredibly asinine page with a delete notice. The original block was for one week, extended an hour later to two weeks. The next day the same person, after apparently being [[taken to the woodshed]], unblocked me. (I nevertheless stayed away for three weeks.) This person then (perhaps after advice given in the woodshed) went to considerable lengths to inform me that the block had been lifted.<br />
<br />
He left a note on my talk page:<br />
<br />
:== I shortened your block. ==<br />
<br />
:I shortened your block. You are now unblocked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:53, 8 March 2016 (EST)<br />
<br />
And he sent me an email, to my sam4557@gmail.com account (which he had never used before):<br />
-----<br />
:Delivered-To: sam4557@gmail.com<br />
:Received: by ******** with HTTP; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 11:17:09 -0800 (PST)<br />
:Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 14:17:09 -0500<br />
:Subject: re: You have been unblocked at Conservapedia<br />
:From: "********" <********><br />
:To: sam4557@gmail.com<br />
<br />
:Dear Sam,<br />
<br />
:I unblocked you at Conservapedia.<br />
<br />
:Sincerely,<br />
<br />
:User: Conservativie<br />
-----<br />
(He often types his own user name incorrectly.)<br />
<br />
And another note on my talk page, to be sure I see it, in case I don't check the sam4557 mail very often:<br />
<br />
:== I sent you an email and... ==<br />
<br />
:SamHB,<br />
<br />
:I sent you an email. <br />
<br />
:Second, let me know when you get this message. {{unsigned|Conservative}}<br />
<br />
To which I left this reply: (All this was taking place on my talk page at the time, later moved here to my user page.)<br />
<br />
::See my user page. {{unsigned|SamHB}}<br />
<br />
I no longer remember exactly what reply was referenced.<br />
<br />
Then, a few weeks later, things got quite weird. He sent me 3 more emails:<br />
-----<br />
:Delivered-To: sam4557@gmail.com<br />
:Received: by ******** with HTTP; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 15:07:44 -0700 (PDT)<br />
:Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 18:07:44 -0400<br />
:Subject: re: talk page post<br />
:From: "********" <********><br />
:To: Sam Becker <sam4557@gmail.com><br />
<br />
:SamHB.<br />
<br />
:Do you have Skype? If so, we can talk about the TAR matter.<br />
<br />
:If you have a Skype account, what is your Skype name?<br />
<br />
:Sincerely,<br />
<br />
:User: Conservative<br />
-----<br />
:Delivered-To: sam4557@gmail.com<br />
:Received: by ******** with HTTP; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 17:07:39 -0700 (PDT)<br />
:Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 20:07:39 -0400<br />
:Subject: Re: talk page post<br />
:From: "********" <********><br />
:To: Sam Becker <sam4557@gmail.com><br />
<br />
:Sam,<br />
<br />
:I was hoping that you would get the email soon given that I have some free time tonight.<br />
<br />
:But since you didn't get the email soon, there is no need for the Skype call. I think the TAR matter will be settled via the talk pages.<br />
-----<br />
:Delivered-To: sam4557@gmail.com<br />
:Received: by ******** with HTTP; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 19:12:47 -0700 (PDT)<br />
:Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 22:12:47 -0400<br />
:Subject: Re: talk page post<br />
:From: "********" <********><br />
:To: Sam Becker <sam4557@gmail.com><br />
<br />
:I see you are active editing again.<br />
<br />
:Do you have a Skype name you wish to share? I am free to Skype a bit tonight.<br />
-----<br />
and left another note on my talk page about this:<br />
::I see you are editing again. Recheck your email. I sent you another email message. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:17, 2 April 2016 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I indirectly replied to all this on this user page (search above for "behind the curve") stating that I do not use Skype. I never replied to any of this by email.<br />
<br />
Then this appeared on my talk page:<br />
<br />
:== The prank that never happened ==<br />
<br />
:As you know, I/we recently invited you to Skype call about a matter. <br />
<br />
:Second, I know you are skeptical that the User: Conservative account has been used by more than one editor (despite the evidence to the contrary. Evidence that a website which has devotees of CP noted). <br />
<br />
[He really likes to misspell user names, by putting in a blank, perhaps to make them unclickable/unpasteable.]<br />
<br />
:Well, the Skype call was going to employ voice changing software so the voice of User: Conservativetism would be many. With proper notice, the various editors of User: Conservatism could have spoken to you via a Skype group/conference call. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:09, 3 April 2016 (EDT)<br />
<br />
[And this time it's "User:Conservativetism".]<br />
<br />
Wait! He was going to use some kind of "voice changing software" to rig up a Skype conference call with me in order to "prove" that he is multiple people?????? Really?<br />
----<br />
:Hey, he asked me via talk page to e-mail him and then via e-mail to Skype him. What you suppose he's doing? He asked 1990'sguy the same thing, I believe.--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 14:44, 4 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Early December, 2015, On the Curious Matter of Sex With Horses==<br />
<br />
I'm not an expert in poetry, atheist or otherwise, but I found [[Atheist poetry]], and its talk page, to be a welcome contrast from most of the topics Cons<ref>User Conservative, affectionately called "Cons"</ref> writes about. Cons got into a spirited discussion of the topic with [[User:JohnSelway]] and [[User:JohnZ]] on the [[Talk:Atheist poetry|talk page]]. So I congratulated him on his good taste in this matter, with a note on that talk page. But I also expressed disappointment that he had seemingly grown tired of the poetry topic, and had gone back to writing about bestiality.<br />
<br />
At about that time, he went on an editing binge, making 43 edits on the subjects of "Atheism and bestiality" or horses, including the creation of the article [[Essay: I say NAAAAAY to atheism and evolutionism!]], complete with a picture of a horse, which clearly suggests a particular interest in the topic of sex with horses.<br />
<br />
For some inexplicable reason, Cons moved my comment to the talk page for [[Atheism and bestiality]], and wrote a long reply about bestiality.<br />
<br />
Not having [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AEpistle_to_the_Hebrews_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=1183335&oldid=1183317 VargasMilan's vocabulary], I am at a loss for words to express how revolting I find that topic, and Cons's extensive writing about bestiality in general. Conservapedia was originally intended as a learning resource for home-school students, presumably in the junior high and high school age range. Everyone is encouraged to watch [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvT5YuDovHI this video] to see Conservapedia's original mission, as explained by Andy Schlafly himself.<br />
<br />
Now, to reply to Cons's remarks:<br />
<br />
:>> SamHB, because you are an evolutionist and a defender of evolutionary pseudoscience ...<br />
I prefer the term "one who accepts the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution". And I don't recognize the term "evolutionary pseudoscience". Sorry.<br />
<br />
:>> (along with holding to liberal theology which often tends to be anti-supernatural in character)<br />
I believe I pointed out to you, at [[User talk:SamHB#Daily Beast evolution article]], the significance of a comma in distinguishing a "restrictive clause" from a "nonrestrictive clause". By not using a comma after "theology", you are saying that, of all liberal theologies, I hold to one of those that "often tends to be anti-supernatural in character". You're right; I do. But perhaps you meant to say that ''all'' liberal theologies often tend to be anti-supernatural in character. If that is what you meant, you should have used a comma.<br />
<br />
:>> I can understand why the evolutionary belief and bestiality and Atheism and bestiality articles are upsetting to you<br />
No, those articles don't upset me at all, except insofar as they make a mockery of Conservapedia's goals.<br />
<br />
:>> especially since you cannot find a single factual error in these articles. <br />
We've been through this before, relating to various other things you've written. Find a factual error? I can hardly find a coherent sentence!<br />
<br />
==Mid-October, 2015, another vape-a-thon by Cons, over Pat Tillman==<br />
Disclaimer: I am not familiar with the case of Pat Tillman, except that it was apparently a tragic friendly-fire battlefield death in Afghanistan. I have absolutely no information on whether he was an atheist, and apparently no one at Conservapedia does either.<br />
<br />
But that didn't stop Cons from getting really worked up in a giant kerfuffle with some people (mostly user "Ebionite") over whether he was an atheist. Now Ebionite was obviously a troll, and a foul-mouthed one at that, and deserved to be blocked. But he really got Cons worked up. Cons vaped (oversighted, "burned the evidence") the discussion '''23 times in 51 minutes'''. I didn't save the stuff (I no longer log Cons's goings-on in detail) but the gist of the argument was the idea that Tillman could not have been an atheist because Cons knows that "No atheist would do [XYZ]." All this in spite of statements by ''people that knew Mr. Tillman personally.''<br />
<br />
Sorry Cons, but whether someone is an atheist does not depend on, and is in fact totally unrelated to, '''what goes on inside YOUR head'''. And the fact that you say "there are no good reasons to be an atheist" does not mean that there are no atheists in the world. It just means that you have not thought this through. There are atheists in this world. I know a number of them.<br />
<br />
==September 23, 2015, in which Cons leaves a note on my talk page about "User: Math" and then vapes it==<br />
Oh, Cons! Bad, naughty Cons! You left a note for me, and then vaped it. (You did the same on VargasMilan's talk page, telling him that you had sent him an email.) In fact, you've been doing an enormous amount of vaping lately. One might wonder whether this is because you are starting to be embarrassed about how many tiny edits it takes for you to say something. As I believe I told you elsewhere, the fix for that is to compose what you want to say in an editor, think about it, polish it into the form you want, and ''then'' upload it. I believe you said at about the same time that you were going to vape ("oversight") things more, in order to keep the Recent Changes log from getting so cluttered. Well, I'm sure you've noticed that, with the new wiki software, acts of vaping are even ''more'' visible than they were before. It just makes the problem ''worse''. I'd suggest that you go back to just editing the way you used to. The bean-counters over at ritionalwaki will continue doing their thing, of course.<br />
<br />
By the way, you shouldn't ever revert, much less vape, things on talk pages, ''especially'' users' talk pages. Talk pages should simply be archived. And I think that vaping another user's talk page is particularly rude. I wouldn't be surprised if VargasMilan was offended by what you did. (Actually, I would be surprised, since his notions of proper behavior seem to be different from mine.)<br />
<br />
Now, getting to the issue at hand, you told me about a user called "User: Math". Complete with the space after the colon that you so charmingly like to put into these things. You apparently thought I would be interested in what such a person had to say, presumably because you know that I am interested in mathematics. A quick check (removing the space, of course) showed that there is no such user at Conservapedia. You gave a web URL. I went there, and, sure enough, there is a user called "Math". So I looked around at his profile and contributions. I found [http://forum.bible-discussion.com/entry.php?1620-Does-God-Exist-Atheism-vs-Theism-vs-Agnosticism this] and [http://forum.bible-discussion.com/member.php?9587-Math&s=932a57f409ec5e0414ca90f01b6e6fc0 this (his profile)] and [http://forum.bible-discussion.com/entry.php?1148-Homosexuality-and-the-Bible this]. When I got to the last one, I thought "Aha! I understand it now! '''This''' is why Cons is interested in this guy. Homosexuality and the Bible."<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, I found no connection at all with mathematics in anything that I saw, though I admit I didn't look into every nook and cranny. You apparently thought I'd be interested in what someone with a screen name of "Math" would say. But no, I'm not interested in a fundamentalist crackpot who just happens to have chosen the name "Math" as his screen name on a crackpot backwater blog, and writes not about math but about homosexuality and the Bible.<br />
<br />
Then you also indicated that this person might have something to teach me about the [[Generalized linear model]]. So I went and refreshed my memory about this. As I recall, you once tried to win an argument (Evolution, Atheism? Who cares?) with someone by telling him that he needed to know more about the generalized linear model. And yet your edits to that article were little more than links to the statsoft web site, and showed no actual knowledge of the topic. I called you out on this, and challenged you to a debate on the subject. I was actually quite specific in one of my challenges, suggesting that we could give each other some data sets to analyze. My intention was, of course, to find out whether you knew anything about the algorithm that begins with L-M. Fortunately for you, your bunny-hole was close by.<br />
<br />
In any case, no, I don't think user "Math" at the bible discussion forum web site has anything to say to me on the subject of the generalized linear model. But my debate offer still stands. One thing you might do, short of a debate but still demonstrating some degree of mathematical erudition, would be to edit the Generalized linear model page and say, in your own words, what binomial distributions and Poisson distributions are.<br />
<br />
==Early September, 2015, in which Cons exhibits his expertise in computer network behavior, gets shot down, and then claims he is right and asks me to apologize==<br />
<br />
The exchange is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=1170098&oldid=1169987 here].<br />
<br />
Conservapedia's server experienced a serious storm of sporadic server outages. Cons weighed in with the advice "get a faster browser", and was totally shot down by knowledgeable people&mdash;AugustO, Bringreaganback, MelH, and myself. I explained in great detail why Cons's theories were incorrect. Cons thrashed around for a bit, and then cited an article in [https://askleo.com/whats_an_internal_server_error_and_how_do_i_fix_it/ the "askleo" web site]. He attempted to make that web site seem authoritative by citing its Alexa rank of about 25,000. This isn't necessary; any technically literate person can look at the web site and see for himself that Leo knows what he is talking about. Alexa ranks don't make a site more authoritative. And that's a good thing, because Conservapedia's rank is about 105,000. (By the way, ritionalwaki's rank is about 23,000, a little better than askleo.)<br />
<br />
Leo says that he is very familiar with the error. In the article, he ''repeatedly'' says that it's a server error, not affected by anything the user might do. Finally, in the "some straws to grasp at" section, he mentions some things that a user might do, including trying a different (not faster; different) browser. But he makes clear that those are very far-fetched scenarios.<br />
::::''In late January, Cons changed the phrase "including trying a different (not faster; different) browser", from the paragraph above, to use boldface and a large font, and gave the edit comment "VICTORY". I am baffled by this. The "askleo" site mentioned using a different browser, not a faster one; what Cons had suggested was a faster browser. He still seems confused about browser speed and server errors. Why he considers it a victory to call attention to this confusion by putting it in boldface and a large font is a mystery.''<br />
<br />
So, no, Cons. There is no need for me to apologize.<br />
<br />
Now one of the things that I pointed out in the exchange was that Cons was writing "word salad" (or should I say "file attribute salad") in what he wrote. The attribute specification that he gave, "-rwxr-", makes no sense, and does not appear in the page that he cites. I suggest that this "calls into question the veracity of Cons's internet research on other topics as well." The significance of this is that it shows that Cons ''can't even cut-and-paste accurately from another web page.'' He just makes things up. Why does that call his veracity on other topics into question? Because he writes very prolifically on a number of subjects (atheism, homosexuality, bestiality, Richard Dawkins, etc), pretending to back up what he is saying with references to things on the internet. I rarely look at the cited articles; I just take Cons's word for it that the person said that. And I'm not an expert on these topics (especially bestiality). I have to take the author's word for it. But if Cons just makes things up, I can't.<br />
<br />
Postscript: In late September, Cons added a note to Talk:Main_Page, thanking Andy for fixing the sporadic outage problem, and pointing out that he no longer gets the errors. The rest of us had noticed that things were working normally weeks earlier. For some reason, Cons must have had second thoughts about his note, because he vaped it. In fact, he committed 8 acts of vaping of this page in late September, some of them probably to other people's edits; I didn't note them in time. One of the vapings was of a routine archiving.<br />
<br />
PostPostscript: At 12:59, 26 September, Cons put the note thanking Andy back in again, this time on Andy's talk page.<br />
<br />
==March, 2015, On the Curious Matter of Putting ''Ferris Bueller's Day Off'' in italics==<br />
<br />
At 15:04, 28 March, [[User:ConsMovies]] made an edit to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&diff=prev&oldid=1142798 the "Greatest Conservative Movies" page] correcting the italicization of the title of ''Ferris Bueller's Day Off'', along with 3 other movies (''The Goonies'', ''God's Not Dead'', and ''Man of Steel''.) Cons blocked him 1 minute later. ConsMovies' edits in general were of a somewhat provocative and snarky nature, but movie titles are generally in italics on that page, and his edit was correct. Cons reverted the edit 3 minutes after that, so that those movie titles are no longer in italics.<br />
<br />
I complained about this on Andy's talk page on March 12. There was a long discussion on this topic, as seen [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive59#ConsMovies here].<br />
<br />
An interesting (to me, at least, as a "Cons-watcher") thing to note about that discussion is that, from looking at the history log, Cons twice '''burned down (completely deleted) Andy Schlafly's talk page, and recreated it''', once at 23:21, 12 March, and once at 14:21, 13 March! He had apparently made some edits that he realized were inappropriate, and needed to cover his tracks. He has since then learned to use more sophisticated techniques to "vape" embarrassing material.<br />
<br />
As of this writing, the errors in the 4 movie titles are still there!<br />
<br />
:Breaking news: At 22:03, 7 February 2016, the page finally got fixed. Congratulations to [[User:Northwest]].<br />
<br />
==A note on the second law of thermodynamics==<br />
<br />
There seems to be a good deal of confusion and unclear writing in the article.<br />
<br />
The subject of thermodynamics, including the second law, was well established during the 19<sup>th</sup> century, by such people as Carnot, Gibbs, Clausius, Clapeyron, Maxwell, Helmholtz, and Thompson (Lord Kelvin). This long predates the advent of quantum mechanics. The subject of statistical mechanics, and the "randomness" or "uncertainty" were well understood. It does not depend on the uncertainty (the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle") of quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
There are two generally recognized types of "perpetual motion machine." A "perpetual motion machine of the first kind", which is what people generally mean when they use this term, is one that violates conservation of energy. Since the first law of thermodynamics is just conservation of energy, such a machine would violate the first law.<br />
<br />
Such a perpetual motion machine is generally taken to mean one that actively gives out nonzero energy (you can see ads for these things on the internet<ref>http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/</ref><ref>http://www.fuellesspower.com/</ref><ref>http://www.magniwork.com/</ref>), rather than one that simply holds its own, even though a machine that holds its own, that is, never runs down, could obviously be considered a "perpetual motion machine."<br />
<br />
Entities that hold their own and never run down actually do exist. Atoms are examples of them. The electrons orbiting the nucleus, if they are in their ground state, never stop. They never lose energy at all. (OK, the fact that they never lose energy depends on quantum mechanics, and I said above that quantum mechanics isn't involved, but the radiation from accelerating charges was unknown when thermodynamics was formulated.) Other things that never stop are quantum-mechanical harmonic oscillators, and gas molecules in their random motion. The latter was central to the kinetic theory that led to the development of thermodynamics. That is, the people developing thermodynamics were aware of the perpetual, never running down, nature of gas molecules. They postulated, correctly, that gas molecule collisions are perfectly elastic and never lose energy. They really are "perpetual motion machines."<br />
<br />
The second law of thermodynamics relates to a more obscure fictional device, a "perpetual motion machine of the second kind." This would be something that violates the second law by causing heat to travel, without introduction of energy from an external source, from a colder body to a warmer one. In fact, it can be shown (and was shown in the 19<sup>th</sup> century), that any heat engine more efficient than that required by Carnot's law is impossible, because it would permit the construction of a machine that moved heat from a colder body to a warmer one.<br />
<br />
From looking at the edit history of the article, there seems to be something of an edit war involving an insistence that the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine be described using the word "derail". This is an extremely unhelpful word, suggesting a similarity with a railroad train running off its tracks, and seems to be an attempt to evoke the commonsense notion of macroscopic mechanical devices wearing out due to friction. The second law is actually very clear in what it states and does not state. The article also muddies the thinking by including a folksy and cute, but woefully imprecise, layman's description by a famous science fiction author. While it is true that a person's room will tend to get messy if not attended to, and shuffling a deck of cards leads to more disorder, this is related to statistics, and involves an entropy change that is utterly minuscule compared with what goes on in thermodynamics. The "intelligent intervention" that the article describes (cleaning up the room, or sorting the cards) is statistically infeasible in the thermodynamics case. In fact, the scientists formulating the second law of thermodynamics considered this, in the form of a "Maxwell's demon", and showed that it was impossible.<br />
<br />
The claim that the second law of thermodynamics disproves relativity or evolution is too preposterous to reply to.<br />
<br />
When I get the time, I will probably write some articles on thermodynamics elsewhere on the internet.<br />
<br />
==My Past Contributions==<br />
<br />
I have contributed to the following articles. Some contributions were minor, but most were major, and many of these articles were created by me. Some got moved from my "sandbox" pages into article space by other people.<br />
<br />
Algebra, Joseph-Louis Lagrange, exponent of "r" in Newtonian gravity, Calc3.1/2/3/4/5, tensor, wave equation, e (mathematics), vector, vector space, vector field, conservative vector field, irrotational vector field, Maxwell's equations, Hodge star, exterior derivative, Cramer's rule, Riemann integral, Green's theorem, dense subset, limit (mathematics), boolean algebra, mathematical paradoxes, function, complex analytic function, continuity, countable, group, real number, rational number, complex number, Cauchy sequence, Dedekind cut, bijection, injection, surjection, ham sandwich theorem, two-pancacke theorem, divergence, curl, cross product, dot product, infinity, functor, continuous function, Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem, principle of induction, general relativity, real analysis, Pierre Simon Laplace, diagonalization.<br />
<br />
==My Future Plans==<br />
<br />
This section . I may need to consult with some sysops on this. Fixing the [[Compass and straightedge]] article is an important item.<br />
<br />
The comment above, about consulting with sysops, referred to the fact that I was blocked and reverted by Daniel Pulido after an earlier attempt to discuss math, so I wanted to contact him by email to get his approval. But he has himself been blocked, so maybe things are OK.<br />
<br />
While there are a huge number of things that need in the mathematics area, I've picked out four that would be good to on. I want to collaborate on these with Ed Poor, who is the other math expert currently around, so I have placed and extensive discussion on [[User_talk:Ed_Poor|his talk page]], which see. I'm also going to bring this to the attention of [[User:JamesWilson]], who may be another up-and-coming math contributor.<br />
<br />
*[[Compass and straightedge]]&mdash;This has been rescued from "parody hell", but it needs much more work to present the material in a way that is logical and understandable to the target audience.<br />
<br />
*Elementary [[Algebra]]&mdash;This has been a topic of discussion between me and Ed for quite some time, generally centering on the question of "how do you explain to an elementary student what the question 'x+3 = 7' is really asking?"<br />
<br />
*Peano axioms&mdash;The fundamental logical basis for all of arithmetic. I dimly recall a discussion between Ed and someone else on this topic; it didn't seem to get anywhere. It is an extremely fascinating topic for the target audience!<br />
<br />
*[[Center]]&mdash;This has been a disaster for a long time. I really don't know how to write the "headline" sentence for this; that is, what's the first thing you say about what the "center" of a geometrical shape is? I solicit any insight that Ed (or anyone else) can provide.<br />
<br />
==More thoughts on math==<br />
Since there is a renewal of interest in writing mathematical articles, I'd like for people to feel free to use my [[User_talk:SamHB|talk page]] for discussion of math articles, if they so desire. I may be able to offer advice or guidance, or suggest fruitful topics.<br />
<br />
People should also feel free to discuss math writing in general, including the topic that is near and dear to me&mdash;setting the right educational level for our expected audience. I only ask that:<br />
*Do not tell me we need extremely advanced articles at the college level. See [[Talk:Algebra|here]] for the latest example of misguided advice along these lines. Just don't ask. I'm not interested.<br />
*If criticizing my or anyone else's writing level or style, please provide a link to a sample of your own writing on the same or equivalent topic and at the same depth, so that we can see just what you have in mind.<br />
<br />
==I see AlanS's talk page has finally been deleted==<br />
He seems to have made his last contribution on December 26, 2008. He was blocked at 19:19 on December 31, two minutes after I was blocked for being a sock of him. I never knew who he was. Looking through his block log, he seems to have gotten into fights with sysops and admins to an astounding degree, suggesting that he was, at heart, just a troublemaker. He seems to have dabbled in "light science" topics, but our paths don't seem to have crossed.<br />
<br />
==The Bugler/LowKey incident==<br />
<br />
User "Bugler" was an extremely brutish user who climbed the status ladder at Conservapedia rather quickly, developing a reputation for blocking people and generally being destructive. He very nearly made it to "administrator", the rank currently held by only a few people&mdash;Andy, Ed Poor, Karajou, JPatt, Conservative, and a few other inactive people. At the end of the process, while being interviewed by Andy and asked his real name, he apparently said it was "Brian Ugler", thereby unmasking himself as a vandal and parodist of the worst kind. He was immediately banished, of course.<br />
<br />
User "LowKey" was one of Bugler's frequent victims, and complained at length on his user page, before Bugler's fall. Lowkey's user page, as of 12 January, 2009, may be found [[User:SamHB/BuglerLowKey|here]]. I am saving it because it is in danger of being vaped.<br />
<br />
==Helpful stuff==<br />
===To mark a page for deletion===<br />
Use <nowiki>{{Delete Notice}}</nowiki><br />
The explanation is not an argument; it is in the following text.<br />
<br />
Or <nowiki>{{speedy}}</nowiki> to explicitly diss it for being "obvious vandalism, sarcastic mockery, or inappropriate".<br />
<br />
Also <nowiki>{{db|whatever}}</nowiki><br />
The explanation is in the argument. This method seems less effective at being noticed.<br />
<br />
===To make a nice quotation block===<br />
{{cquote|blah blah}}<br />
<br />
Indented quote, but without the big quote marks. (You can get pretty much the same thing with colon.)<br />
<blockquote>blah blah</blockquote><br />
<br />
===To put in footnotes etc.===<br />
See [[How to put links and footnotes into your articles]].<br />
<br />
===To welcome a new user===<br />
<nowiki>{{welcome|sig=SamHB}}</nowiki><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/></div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Magnetic_field&diff=1448669Magnetic field2018-09-16T16:19:51Z<p>SamHB: Try to make refs look nice.</p>
<hr />
<div>A '''magnetic field''' is a [[vector field]] responsible for generating [[force]]s on electrically charged objects and magnets. Magnetic fields are generated by magnetic [[dipole]]s, moving [[electric charge]]s, or changing [[electric field]]s.<br />
<br />
Magnetic fields are related to electric fields; together they are part of [[electromagnetism]]. For instance, [[light]] is a propagating electric and magnetic [[wave]]. A magnetic force in one [[inertial frame of reference]] could correspond to an electric force, or to some combination of magnetic force and electric force, in another. This phenomenon is described by [[Maxwell's equations]], and is a consequence of [[relativity]].<br />
<br />
==Mathematics==<br />
Magnetic fields are often denoted using the letter B. The magnetic force acting on a particle travelling at a [[velocity]] v can be written as:<br />
<br />
<math><br />
\vec{F} = q \left( \vec{v} \times \vec{B} \right)<br />
</math><br />
<br />
where q is the electrical charge on the particle.<ref>[http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/funfor.html#c3 Magnetic force on hyperphysics]</ref> The [[cross product]] means that the force will always act at a right angle to both the field and the velocity and if the velocity is [[parallel]] to the field, no force will act. As the force always acts perpendicular to the velocity, a charged particle in a uniform (constant) magnetic field will undergo [[circular motion]]. The [[magnitude]] of the force can also be written as:<br />
<br />
<math><br />
F = qvB \sin{\theta}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
where θ is the angle between the velocity and magnetic field. The direction can then be found using the [[right hand rule]].<br />
<br />
===Force on a Current Carrying Wire===<br />
An electrical [[current]] is rate of flow of charge past a point. By considering a wire with length L, the equation IL=nqv can be derived, where I is the current flowing along that wire and n is the "number density" (the number of charge carriers per unit length). This means that the force on a straight current carrying wire in a '''uniform''' magnetic field can be found as:<br />
<br />
<math><br />
F = BIL \sin{\theta}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
with θ now being the angle between the wire and the magnetic field.<br />
<br />
===Magnetic Field Produced by a Current Carrying Wire===<br />
Any electrical current creates a magnetic field. The magnetic field around a straight wire circulates around the wire. Its strength at a point depends only on the perpendicular distance to the wire and the size of the current:<br />
<br />
<math><br />
B = \frac{\mu_0 I}{2 \pi r}<br />
</math> <br />
<br />
where r is the distance to the wire and μ<sub>0</sub> is the [[constants|permeability of free space]].<br />
<br />
==Earth's Magnetic Field==<br />
The magnetic field of [[Earth]] is directional nearly north-to-south, although slightly askance, meaning that "magnetic north" is not the same as "true north," and a person who is orienteering must take into account this change of declination, although it is truly only marginally relevant, unless you are close to either pole.<ref>Boy Scout Handbook.</ref> This field has been decaying, in the time period that measurements have been made, at a rate of about about 5% per century.<ref>K.L. McDonald and R.H. Gunst, 'An analysis of the earth’s magnetic field from 1835 to 1965,’ ESSA Technical Report, IER 46-IES 1, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, 1967</ref> This decay suggests that, at some point, the poles will invert. In fact, geological evidence indicates that the magnetic field has reversed many times in the Earth's history. While the fluctuations are not uniform, reversals seem to take place about every 200,000 years, though the last reversal was about 780,000 years ago.<ref>[https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/earths-magnetic-field-is-fading/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/earths-magnetic-field-is-fading/]</ref><br />
<br />
===Creationist View===<br />
<br />
One group that makes use of the [[Bible]] as a resource for science suggests that the history of the Earth's magnetic field is as depicted here.<ref name=answersingenesis>[https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/the-earths-magnetic-field-and-the-age-of-the-earth/ answersingenesis.org]</ref><br />
[[Image:magnetic_field.gif|right|thumb|Change in the Earth's magnetic field according to Humphreys' model]]<br />
The model, created by [[Russell Humphreys]], can be summarized as:<br />
<br />
* Creation of the Earth's magnetic field when God created the Earth<br />
* A decay in its strength until the time of the [[Great Flood]]<br />
* A series of very rapid reversals during the Flood, perhaps once every one or two weeks<ref name=answersingenesis/><br />
* Fluctuations continue for around two thousand years after the Flood<br />
* The steady decay of the field resumes<br />
<br />
This model suggests the magnetic field of the Earth must be less than 10,000 years old.<br />
<br />
This analysis is not accepted by the scientific community.<ref>[http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationist_clocks/magnetic_field.html http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationist_clocks/magnetic_field.html]</ref><br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
{{reflist}}<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Electric field]]<br />
*[[Electromagnetism]]<br />
*[[Maxwell's equations]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Electromagnetism]]</div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Magnetic_field&diff=1448668Magnetic field2018-09-16T16:17:05Z<p>SamHB: /* Earth's Magnetic Field */ Put creationist material in its own section. Don't wikilink same thing twice.</p>
<hr />
<div>A '''magnetic field''' is a [[vector field]] responsible for generating [[force]]s on electrically charged objects and magnets. Magnetic fields are generated by magnetic [[dipole]]s, moving [[electric charge]]s, or changing [[electric field]]s.<br />
<br />
Magnetic fields are related to electric fields; together they are part of [[electromagnetism]]. For instance, [[light]] is a propagating electric and magnetic [[wave]]. A magnetic force in one [[inertial frame of reference]] could correspond to an electric force, or to some combination of magnetic force and electric force, in another. This phenomenon is described by [[Maxwell's equations]], and is a consequence of [[relativity]].<br />
<br />
==Mathematics==<br />
Magnetic fields are often denoted using the letter B. The magnetic force acting on a particle travelling at a [[velocity]] v can be written as:<br />
<br />
<math><br />
\vec{F} = q \left( \vec{v} \times \vec{B} \right)<br />
</math><br />
<br />
where q is the electrical charge on the particle.<ref>[http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/funfor.html#c3 Magnetic force on hyperphysics]</ref> The [[cross product]] means that the force will always act at a right angle to both the field and the velocity and if the velocity is [[parallel]] to the field, no force will act. As the force always acts perpendicular to the velocity, a charged particle in a uniform (constant) magnetic field will undergo [[circular motion]]. The [[magnitude]] of the force can also be written as:<br />
<br />
<math><br />
F = qvB \sin{\theta}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
where θ is the angle between the velocity and magnetic field. The direction can then be found using the [[right hand rule]].<br />
<br />
===Force on a Current Carrying Wire===<br />
An electrical [[current]] is rate of flow of charge past a point. By considering a wire with length L, the equation IL=nqv can be derived, where I is the current flowing along that wire and n is the "number density" (the number of charge carriers per unit length). This means that the force on a straight current carrying wire in a '''uniform''' magnetic field can be found as:<br />
<br />
<math><br />
F = BIL \sin{\theta}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
with θ now being the angle between the wire and the magnetic field.<br />
<br />
===Magnetic Field Produced by a Current Carrying Wire===<br />
Any electrical current creates a magnetic field. The magnetic field around a straight wire circulates around the wire. Its strength at a point depends only on the perpendicular distance to the wire and the size of the current:<br />
<br />
<math><br />
B = \frac{\mu_0 I}{2 \pi r}<br />
</math> <br />
<br />
where r is the distance to the wire and μ<sub>0</sub> is the [[constants|permeability of free space]].<br />
<br />
==Earth's Magnetic Field==<br />
The magnetic field of [[Earth]] is directional nearly north-to-south, although slightly askance, meaning that "magnetic north" is not the same as "true north," and a person who is orienteering must take into account this change of declination, although it is truly only marginally relevant, unless you are close to either pole.<ref>Boy Scout Handbook.</ref> This field has been decaying, in the time period that measurements have been made, at a rate of about about 5% per century.<ref>K.L. McDonald and R.H. Gunst, 'An analysis of the earth’s magnetic field from 1835 to 1965,’ ESSA Technical Report, IER 46-IES 1, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, 1967</ref> This decay suggests that, at some point, the poles will invert. In fact, geological evidence indicates that the magnetic field has reversed many times in the Earth's history. While the fluctuations are not uniform, reversals seem to take place about every 200,000 years, though the last reversal was about 780,000 years ago.<ref>[https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/earths-magnetic-field-is-fading/]</ref><br />
<br />
===Creationist View===<br />
<br />
One group that makes use of the [[Bible]] as a resource for science suggests that the history of the Earth's magnetic field is as depicted here.<ref name=answersingenesis>[https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/the-earths-magnetic-field-and-the-age-of-the-earth/ answersingenesis.org]</ref><br />
[[Image:magnetic_field.gif|right|thumb|Change in the Earth's magnetic field according to Humphreys' model]]<br />
The model, created by [[Russell Humphreys]], can be summarized as:<br />
<br />
* Creation of the Earth's magnetic field when God created the Earth<br />
* A decay in its strength until the time of the [[Great Flood]]<br />
* A series of very rapid reversals during the Flood, perhaps once every one or two weeks<ref name=answersingenesis/><br />
* Fluctuations continue for around two thousand years after the Flood<br />
* The steady decay of the field resumes<br />
<br />
This model suggests the magnetic field of the Earth must be less than 10,000 years old.<br />
<br />
This analysis is not accepted by the scientific community.<ref>[http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationist_clocks/magnetic_field.html]</ref><br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
{{reflist}}<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Electric field]]<br />
*[[Electromagnetism]]<br />
*[[Maxwell's equations]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Electromagnetism]]</div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Magnetic_field&diff=1448664Magnetic field2018-09-16T15:58:32Z<p>SamHB: The interconnection of E and B is a little more subtle.</p>
<hr />
<div>A '''magnetic field''' is a [[vector field]] responsible for generating [[force]]s on electrically charged objects and magnets. Magnetic fields are generated by magnetic [[dipole]]s, moving [[electric charge]]s, or changing [[electric field]]s.<br />
<br />
Magnetic fields are related to electric fields; together they are part of [[electromagnetism]]. For instance, [[light]] is a propagating electric and magnetic [[wave]]. A magnetic force in one [[inertial frame of reference]] could correspond to an electric force, or to some combination of magnetic force and electric force, in another. This phenomenon is described by [[Maxwell's equations]], and is a consequence of [[relativity]].<br />
<br />
==Mathematics==<br />
Magnetic fields are often denoted using the letter B. The magnetic force acting on a particle travelling at a [[velocity]] v can be written as:<br />
<br />
<math><br />
\vec{F} = q \left( \vec{v} \times \vec{B} \right)<br />
</math><br />
<br />
where q is the electrical charge on the particle.<ref>[http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/funfor.html#c3 Magnetic force on hyperphysics]</ref> The [[cross product]] means that the force will always act at a right angle to both the field and the velocity and if the velocity is [[parallel]] to the field, no force will act. As the force always acts perpendicular to the velocity, a charged particle in a uniform (constant) magnetic field will undergo [[circular motion]]. The [[magnitude]] of the force can also be written as:<br />
<br />
<math><br />
F = qvB \sin{\theta}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
where θ is the angle between the velocity and magnetic field. The direction can then be found using the [[right hand rule]].<br />
<br />
===Force on a Current Carrying Wire===<br />
An electrical [[current]] is rate of flow of charge past a point. By considering a wire with length L, the equation IL=nqv can be derived, where I is the current flowing along that wire and n is the "number density" (the number of charge carriers per unit length). This means that the force on a straight current carrying wire in a '''uniform''' magnetic field can be found as:<br />
<br />
<math><br />
F = BIL \sin{\theta}<br />
</math><br />
<br />
with θ now being the angle between the wire and the magnetic field.<br />
<br />
===Magnetic Field Produced by a Current Carrying Wire===<br />
Any electrical current creates a magnetic field. The magnetic field around a straight wire circulates around the wire. Its strength at a point depends only on the perpendicular distance to the wire and the size of the current:<br />
<br />
<math><br />
B = \frac{\mu_0 I}{2 \pi r}<br />
</math> <br />
<br />
where r is the distance to the wire and μ<sub>0</sub> is the [[constants|permeability of free space]].<br />
<br />
==Earth's Magnetic Field==<br />
[[Image:magnetic_field.gif|right|thumb|Change in the Earth's magnetic field according to Humphreys' model ]]<br />
The magnetic field of [[Earth]] is directional nearly north-to-south, although slightly askance, meaning that "magnetic north" is not the same as "true north," and a person who is orienteering must take into account this change of declination, although it is truly only marginally relevant, unless you are close to either pole.<ref>Boy Scout Handbook.</ref> This field has been decaying at a rapid rate of about about 5% per century, which casts doubt on the theory that the [[Earth]] is billions of years old.<ref>K.L. McDonald and R.H. Gunst, 'An analysis of the earth’s magnetic field from 1835 to 1965,’ ESSA Technical Report, IER 46-IES 1, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, 1967.</ref> This decay suggests that, at some point, the poles will invert.<br />
<br />
Scientists have speculated about the history of Earth's magnetic field. One group that makes use of the [[Bible]] as a resource for science suggests that the history of the Earth's magnetic field is as depicted to the right.<ref name=answersingenesis>[https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/the-earths-magnetic-field-and-the-age-of-the-earth/ answersingenesis.org]</ref> The model, created by [[Russell Humphreys]], can be summarised as:<br />
<br />
* Creation of the Earth's magnetic field when God created the Earth<br />
* A decay in its strength until the time of the [[Great Flood]]<br />
* A series of very rapid reversals during the Flood, perhaps once every one or two weeks<ref name=answersingenesis/><br />
* Fluctuations continue for around two thousand years after the Flood<br />
* The steady decay of the field resumes<br />
<br />
This model suggests the magnetic field of the [[Earth]] must be less than 10,000 years old<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
{{reflist}}<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Electric field]]<br />
*[[Electromagnetism]]<br />
*[[Maxwell's equations]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Electromagnetism]]</div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=1448335E=mc²2018-09-15T03:12:03Z<p>SamHB: /* The Cockcroft/Walton experiment */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''E=mc&sup2;''' asserts that the energy ('''E''') in an unmoving particle is equal to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c&sup2;''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that particle.<ref>"Energy and mass are linked in the most famous relationship in physics: E = mc&sup2;. (The energy content of a body is equal to the mass of the body times the speed of light squared.)" [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/einstein-genius-among-geniuses.html Einstein: Genius Among Geniuses] - PBS's NOVA</ref> The complete form, when applied to moving objects, is [[E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2|E&sup2;=(mc&sup2;)&sup2;+(pc)&sup2;]], where '''p''' represents momentum,<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnMIhxWRGNw</ref> It is a statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[energy]]. In fact, no [[theory]] has successfully unified the [[law]]s governing [[mass]] (''i.e.'', [[gravity]]) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', [[electromagnetism]]), and numerous attempts to derive '''E=mc&sup2;''' from first principles have failed.<ref name="wvarticles">Five lectures at Wikiversity. The 4th one derives the formula, using the assumptions in the "What the Equation Means" section.<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/space,_time,_and_the_Lorentz_transform Lecture 1]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/momentum Lecture 2]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/energy Lecture 3]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/E_%3D_mc%C2%B2 Lecture 4]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/spacetime_diagrams_and_vectors Lecture 5]</ref> [[Politics|Political]] pressure, however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in [[science]] to even question the validity of this nonsensical [[equation]]. ''Simply put, E=mc&sup2; is [[liberal claptrap]]''.<br />
<br />
The formula asserts that the mass of an object, at constant energy, magically varies precisely in inverse proportion to the square of a change in the speed of light over time,<ref>http://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html</ref> which violates [[conservation of mass]] and disagrees with commonsense.<ref>The formula asserts that the mass of an object has energy associated with it, even when it is not moving (p=0). The formula asserts a relationship between the rest mass of an object, its energy and the speed of light. According to the formula, the apparent mass of an object depends on its energy and so [[conservation of mass]] is not satisfied. Instead, relativity proposes that the total energy of a [[closed system]] is conserved, when we &quot;convert&quot; the masses into energies using this formula.</ref><br />
<br />
Physicists have never been able to unify light with matter<ref>Quantum Electrodynamics describes how matter interacts with matter, the standard model of particle physics describes how matter (fermions) interact with bosons (force carriers) for the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces. To date, no theory has been proven to unify gravity with electromagnetism.</ref> despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so.<ref>Much of 20th century physics has centered around the interactions between photons (light) and fermionic matter, and much more than a billion dollars has been spent on this. But that doesn't imply that they have been "unified".</ref> [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]] predicts that there is no unified theory of light and matter because they were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]].<br />
<br />
[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic [[energy]] of an object (such as an [[atom]]) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to the accepted view (as predicted by [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]) that the forces of nature have not been unified. Liberal scientists assert the formula E=mc&sup2; is not limited to nuclear reactions; it applies to chemical reactions and even to the energy stored in a compressed spring.<ref>http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99140.htm</ref><br />
<br />
The claim that '''E=mc&sup2;''' has never yielded anything of value and it has often been used as a redefinition of &quot;[[energy]]&quot; for pseudo-scientific purposes by non-scientific journals. Claims can be found not only on liberal, second-tier college websites but at those of [[Baylor]] and the [[MIT]] that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation and [[nuclear weapon]]s ([[nuclear fusion]] and [[nuclear fission]]) and about [[antimatter]].<ref>[http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/E=mcsquared/index.html John D. Norton ''Einstein for everyone - E=mc²''], Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Pittsburgh</ref><ref>[http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/releng.html Rod Nave ''HpyerPhysics - Relativistic Energy''], Georgia State University</ref><ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html Peter Tyson ''The Legacy of E=mc&sup2;''] October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''.</ref><br />
<br />
The [[Theory of Relativity]] has never been able to mathematically derive '''E=mc&sup2;''' from first principles,<ref name="wvarticles"/> and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H Eugene Hecht: ''How Einstein confirmed E<sub>0</sub>=mc&sup2;'', American Journal of Physics, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp. 591-600 (2011)]</ref> Nevertheless, Robert Dicke - one of the most accomplished American-born physicists and experimental physicists in history - found it unlikely that the equivalence was wrong.<ref>R. H. Dicke "The Theoretical Significance of Experimental Relativity", Gordon and Breach, 1964</ref><br />
<br />
It has been known for a long time that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by [[Henri Poincaré]] in 1904,<ref>[http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540 Herbert E. Ives ''Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation'', JOSA, Vol. 42, Issue 8, pp. 540-543 (1952)]</ref> but the equation '''E=mc&sup2;''' makes a claim far beyond that limited circumstance:<br />
<br />
{{cquote|The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).|||[[Herbert Ives]], 1952}}<br />
<!--In 1907, [[Max Planck]] proved in his fundamental paper that the formula ''E=mc&sup2;'' is not a general law and any system submitted to an external pressure will obey a different law: its mass will be proportional to its enthalpy ''H=E+PV'', that is, ''m=H/c&sup2;''<ref name="Capria">{{cite book |author=Marco M. Capria, Aubert Daigneaut et al. |title=Physics Before and After Einstein |publisher=IOS Press |year=2005 |chapter=2.Mechanics and Electromagnetism... |pages=43|isbn=1-58603-462-6 |url=http://www.dmi.unipg.it/~mamone/pubb/PBAE.pdf |quote=}}</ref>.--><br />
<br />
== Description for the layman ==<br />
<br />
The equation is extremely famous, and just as extremely misunderstood, in popular culture. Among the more outlandish claims are statements to the effect that "E=mc&sup2; holds the secret of the atomic bomb."<ref>Not so. The energy of the atomic bomb comes not from E=mc&sup2;, but from the tension between the electrostatic force and the strong nuclear force. E=mc&sup2; simply meant that the fission products from the [[Little Boy|Hiroshima]] bomb weighed 0.7 grams less than the original Uranium.</ref><br />
[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|<br />
*"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>]]<br />
The equation has acquired something of a "cult" status. In the USA, the popular ''[[Twilight Zone]]'' series featured '''E=mc&sup2;''' prominently, giving the equation greater currency with the public. The song ''[[Albert Einstein|Einstein]] A Go-Go'' by the band Landscape had a similar effect in the UK in the 1980s. The equation was the title of a single by ''Big Audio Dynamite'' in 1985, and an album by Mariah Carey in 2008. Some movies have been themed on this equation.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322120/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_2, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116160/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_1</ref> The equation, along with a picture of a mushroom cloud and a picture of [[Albert Einstein]], were featured on the front cover of an issue of ''Time'' magazine in 1946. All of this is disappointing when one considers how few people actually understand what the equation is saying.<br />
<br />
A number of science writers&mdash;both serious scientists and science popularizers&mdash;have at various times written their own explanation of the equation. Some of these are helpful; many are not. One of the better ones, though not without its share of nonsense, is a NOVA series by the [[Public Broadcasting Service]]<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/ancestors-einstein.html David Bodanis ''Ancestors of E=mc&sup2;''], Nov 10, 2005, NOVA</ref><br />
<br />
In 2005 The PBS NOVA series also asked 10 physicists to describe the equation in layman's terms.<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html Lexi Krock, David Levin (editors) ''E=mc&sup2; explained'', June, 2005. PBS ''NOVA'']</ref> Here is a sample of five of the statements:<br />
{{cquote|''It's something that doesn't happen in your kitchen or in everyday life.''|||[[Neil deGrasse Tyson]], Astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History}}{{cquote|''When an object emits light, say, a flashlight, it gets lighter.''|||Sheldon Glashow, Theoretical Physicist and Nobel Laureate, Boston University}}{{cquote|''Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.''|||Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University}}{{cquote|''You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.''|||Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University}}{{<br />
cquote|''It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.''|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}<br />
<br />
Of these, only the Sheldon Glashow quote makes a specific and meaningful statement about what the equation means.<br />
<br />
== What the Equation Means ==<br />
The equation is about energy, both kinetic energy and potential energy.<br />
<br />
Kinetic energy is actual visible energy, that is, energy of things that are in motion. It's the energy of a thrown baseball. Radiation (for example, light) also counts as kinetic energy&mdash;it's the motion of photons. Light carries energy, force, and momentum. The force carried by light is not as obvious as the force of a thrown baseball, but it is there. The force of sunlight has been proposed for long-term space travel. It is also the force that causes the [[Pioneer anomaly]] and the force that makes a comet's tail stream away from the Sun.<br />
<br />
Potential energy is the other kind&mdash;"hidden" energy. It can become kinetic energy, or vice-versa. A wound up spring, a charged battery, a stretched rubber band, a mixture of gasoline and air, an explosive, and a radioactive atom, all have potential energy. It's what is needed to make the principle of conservation of energy work. That is, when kinetic energy comes into existence, it's because potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. The wound-up spring of a clock has potential energy, that runs down over time, being converted into the kinetic energy of the ticking sound. A battery has potential energy that runs down when it provides electricity to make things move. Various chemical substances have characteristic amounts of potential energy, that may be converted to or from kinetic energy when chemical reactions occur. For example, Sodium and Chlorine have more potential energy than Sodium Chloride. Explosives have more potential energy than their constituent atoms. Radioactive atoms have more potential energy than their "daughter" atoms.<br />
<br />
The principle of ''conservation of energy'', universally accepted for well over 100 years, says<br />
<br />
::Total energy (kinetic + potential) is always conserved.<br />
<br />
Hundreds of years of research by chemists (and, before that, the alchemists) worked out the potential energies that are characteristic of various substances, and that the potential and kinetic energies are accurately converted from one to the other, leading to the principle of conservation of total energy.<br />
<br />
An interesting fact is that, normally, one considers only ''changes'' in potential energy; one doesn't need an absolute scale. A rock at the top of a hill has more potential energy than after it rolls to the bottom of the hill, but the energy at the bottom isn't necessarily zero. We could dig a hole and let it roll down farther, with its energy going negative. Only changes matter. Now it turns out that, once one accepts the implications of E=mc², one ''could'' assign an absolute potential energy to something&mdash;its mass times c², and changes in potential energy would work out correctly because of the mass changes. But that isn't necessary, and, in any case, it would require accepting E=mc² and would therefore be getting ahead of the story.<br />
<br />
<br />
With those preliminaries out of the way, it is possible to give a concise explanation of what the equation means:<br />
<br />
::'''Potential energy has mass.'''<br />
<br />
That is, it weighs something. Whenever anything has potential energy of any kind in it, improbable as this may sound, it weighs more. The proportionality constant is 1/c<sup>2</sup>, or 1.11 x 10<sup>−17</sup> kilograms per joule. A fresh battery weighs more than a spent one, a wound-up alarm clock weighs more than a run-down one, etc.<br />
<br />
Now that's way too small to measure for anything other than nuclear reactions, which is why it escaped everyone's notice for so long. But it has been measured and experimentally verified for nuclear transformations all across the periodic table.<br />
<br />
:There's an interesting parallel with heat. Before the rise of thermodynamics, it was believed that heat was a "substance". That substance was called "caloric". When heat travels from one body to another, what was really happening was presumed to be a transfer of caloric. Much effort was put into measuring the mass of this mysterious "substance". It was always found to be zero, and we now know that what is actually being transferred is thermal energy. So it is not unheard-of to assign mass to intangible properties.<br />
<br />
The nonzero mass of potential energy, and the equation E=mc², were determined on theoretical grounds, before any experimental observations were made. The logic of this follows from these assumptions:<br />
<br />
#Galilean and Newtonian mechanics.<br />
#Galilean relativity, that is, the notion that there is no absolute frame of reference.<br />
#Conservation of energy.<br />
#Conservation of momentum. (So far this is just classical physics.)<br />
#The universality of the speed of light. (That is, special relativity.)<br />
<br />
Keep in mind that, under special relativity, it's not just space and time that need to be redefined. The definitions of momentum and energy need to change also. This is necessary so that the '''conservation of energy and of momentum will be absolutely precise in all circumstances.'''<br />
<br />
Under classical Newtonian mechanics, the momentum and kinetic energy of a moving mass are<br />
:<math>p = mv\,</math><br />
and<br />
:<math>E = \frac{1}{2}mv^2\,</math><br />
respectively. But under special relativity they are<br />
:<math>p = \frac{mv}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}\,</math><br />
and<br />
:<math>E = mc^2\left(\frac{1}{1 - v^2/c^2} - 1\right)\,</math><br />
One can verify that, in the non-relativistic limit, the relativistic values converge to the classical ones.<br />
<br />
It is this requirement, and some "gedanken experiments" involving conversion between potential and kinetic energy, that lead to E=mc².<ref name="wvarticles"/> These experiments involve some kind of object that isn't moving (though there might be internal motion that doesn't figure in the experiment) and therefore has no kinetic energy and only potential energy, turning into some things that have kinetic energy. The requirements of strict conservation of total momentum and total energy prove the equation.<br />
<br />
Einstein's famous derivation<ref name="einstein1905b">[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?" Albert Einstein, Sept 1905]</ref> involved light instead of tangible objects, but the result is the same.<br />
<br />
==History of Experimental Verification==<br />
Because the change in mass arising from a given release of energy is so small (<math>1/c^2</math>, which 1.11 x 10<sup>−17</sup> kilograms per joule), it is essentially impossible to check this equation for normal processes. For example, a flashlight battery loses about 1 picogram of mass when it discharges, and the resultant atoms from the detonation of 1 kilogram of TNT weigh 47 nanograms less than the TNT. Even if all the particles of smoke and gas could be collected reliably, the difference couldn't be detected.<br />
<br />
Measuring the effect requires process that release vastly more energy than ordinary chemical processes. The discovery of Radium and Polonium around 1898 gave a tantalizing hint that there were processes that released far more energy than chemical processes could account for. These elements continuously released measurable heat, and also glowed in the dark.<br />
<br />
Einstein touched on this possibility in his original 1905 paper.<ref name=einstein1905b/><br />
{{cquote|''It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully put to the test.''}}It would take more than a decade to develop an understanding of the nuclear process involved. The first thing that was required was accurate knowledge of atomic weights.<br />
<br />
Atomic weights of the various elements were first measured, with accuracy of a few decimal places, by J. J. Berzelius in the late 1820s. This required extremely painstaking (for the time) measurements. The figures were refined to even more accuracy by J. A. R. Newlands in the 1860s. The values were accurate enough to clearly show the rather interesting property that the atomic weights were nearly integers, but not exactly so. The reason for this would turn out to be partly because of different isotopes (discovered by Frederick Soddy in 1913) and partly because of E=mc<sup>2</sup>.<br />
<br />
In 1907 Rutherford determined that the "alpha" radiation from Radium was Helium. In 1911 he formulated the theory of the nucleus. In 1919 he demonstrated that nuclear transmutations could take place, such as<br />
<br />
::<math>{}_7^{14}\mathrm{N}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}\,\rightarrow\, {}_8^{17}\mathrm{O}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}</math><br />
<br />
The discovery of Radon, and much further investigation, revealed that the behavior of Radium was<br />
<br />
::<math>{}_{88}^{226}\mathrm{Ra}\,\rightarrow\, {}_{86}^{222}\mathrm{Rn}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math><br />
and<br />
::<math>{}_{86}^{222}\mathrm{Rn}\,\rightarrow\, {}_{84}^{218}\mathrm{Po}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math><br />
<br />
Accurate ways of measuring speed of a charged particle, by deflecting it in a magnetic field, had been developed by then, so that, by very painstaking observation and measurement, it was determined that the first alpha particle (Helium nucleus) had an energy of 4.78 MeV and the second an energy of 5.49 Mev. This confirmed E=mc<sup>2</sup> up to the accuracy of the measurements. The equation, along with knowledge of isotope mixes, now explained why the atomic weights appearing in the periodic table were nearly integers, but not exactly so.<br />
<br />
Around 1925, the development of the mass spectrograph, by Francis Aston, made it possible to measure atomic weights to extreme precision.<br />
<br />
The 1932 Cockcroft-Walton experiment, described in more detail below, started to make the equation famous by confirming it, with reasonable accuracy, for an artificially induced nuclear reaction. (Confirming E=mc<sup>2</sup> was not a goal of the experiment; it was an incidental consequence. The equation had already been known and understood for many years.)<br />
<br />
In the decades since, nuclear transmutations have been performed, in particle accelerators, all over the periodic table, observing in detail the properties of various isotopes. These have confirmed E=mc<sup>2</sup> with great precision. See [[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]].<br />
<br />
==The Rainville test==<br />
Perhaps the most precise direct empirical verification of E=mc<sup>2</sup> was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville ''et. al.''<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref> The article states that &quot;Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−&Delta;mc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10<sup>−7</sup>, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described.&quot;<br />
<br />
==The [[Cockcroft and Walton Experiment|Cockcroft/Walton experiment]]==<br />
This experiment is not one of the ones usually cited as validating E=mc². That was not its goal. The generally accepted important tests of this equation are the measurements of alpha decay energies, described above.<br />
<br />
In 1932 English physicist John Cockcroft and Irish physicist Ernest Walton performed the first artificial nuclear transmutation of nuclei, for which they were awarded the 1951 [[Nobel Prize]] in physics.<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf John D. Cockroft ''Experiments on the interaction of high-speed nucleons with atomic nuclei''], Nobel Lecture, Dec 11, 1951</ref> The award was for ''&quot;their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles.&quot;''<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/# Nobel Prize Organization]</ref> <br />
<br />
Verifying E=mc² was not the goal of the experiment, and the Nobel prize was awarded for the transmutation itself, not any verification of the equation. This experiment could not have proved any general truth to the equation, since it was a test of just one specific reaction. But data from this experiment was consistent with the equation for the particular transmutation involved.<br />
<br />
They bombarded [[Lithium]] atoms with [[protons]] having a [[kinetic energy]] less than 1 [[Electron-Volts|MeV]]. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[alpha particle]]s, for which the [[kinetic energy]] was measured as 17.3 MeV<br />
<br />
:::::<math>{}_3^7\mathrm{Li}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}\,\rightarrow\,2\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math><br />
<br />
The mass of the particles on the left hand side is 8.0263 [[atomic mass units|amu]], the mass on the right hand side ''only'' 8.0077 amu.<ref>Gerard Piel ''The age of science: what scientists learned in the 20th century'', Basic Books, 2001, p. 144-145</ref> The difference between this masses is .00186 amu, which results in the following back-of-an-envelope calculation:<br />
<br />
::::<math>0.00186\,\mathrm{amu} \cdot c^2 = 0.0186 \cdot 1.66 \cdot 10^{-27}\,\mathrm{kg}\cdot\left(3\cdot10^8\,\mathrm{\frac{m}{s}}\right)^2</math><br />
::::<math>\approx\,2.79\cdot 10^{-12} \,\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}</math><br />
::::<math>\approx \,17.3\,\mathrm{MeV}</math><br />
<br />
Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:<br />
<br />
==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==<br />
<br />
For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc&sup2;. (The equation applies to '''all''' interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc&sup2; applies only to nuclear interactions.)<br />
<br />
The [[Theory of Relativity]] played no role in this work, but proponents later tried to retrofit the theory to the data in order to explain the explain the observed mass changes.<ref>Actually, the formula E=mc<sup>2</sup> was published in 1905, and has not changed since then. Fission of Uranium was discovered in 1938. It is not possible that the equation was retrofitted to explain this discovery.</ref> Here is the most famous example of the mass change.<br />
<br />
Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by [[Otto Hahn]] and [[Fritz Strassman]], and analyzed by [[Lise Meitner]], in 1938.<br />
<br />
There are a great number of decay paths of [[Uranium]] fission that figured in this experiment. The result element that most caught their attention was [[Barium]], because it was chemically related to the Radium that they were expecting. One of the fission paths may have been this:<br />
<br />
:<sup>235</sup>U &rarr; <sup>140</sup>Xe + <sup>91</sup>Sr + 4n<br />
<br />
(The [[Xenon]] decayed within about a minute to <sup>140</sup>Ba. They were searching for the chemical signature of Barium.)<br />
<br />
The masses of the particles are:<br />
<br />
{| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; border=&quot;1&quot; cellpadding=&quot;8&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; <br />
! Substance<br />
! <sup>235</sup>U<br />
! <sup>140</sup>Xe<br />
! <sup>91</sup>Sr<br />
! 4 neutrons<br />
|-<br />
| Number of protons<br />
| 92<br />
| 54<br />
| 38<br />
| 0<br />
|-<br />
| Number of neutrons<br />
| 235<br />
| 140<br />
| 91<br />
| 4<br />
|-<br />
| Number of electrons<br />
| 92<br />
| 54<br />
| 38<br />
| 0<br />
|-<br />
| Mass<br />
| 235.04393<br />
| 139.92164<br />
| 90.910203<br />
| 4.03466<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The mass of the Uranium atom is 235.04393, and the sum of the masses of the products is 234.866503. The difference is .177427 amu, or, using the E=mc&sup2; equation, 165 million electron volts. (The generally accepted value for the total energy released by Uranium fission, including secondary decays, is about 200 million electron volts.)<br />
<br />
The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate &quot;mass defect&quot; quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc&sup2; equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.<br />
<br />
==A Topical Example: Speed of Extremely Energetic Neutrinos==<br />
Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. In 2011 there were [http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos?newsfeed=true reports] that high-energy neutrinos had been observed traveling at a speed faster than the speed of light in an experiment at the Gran Sasso laboratory in Italy. Specifically, they seemed to have arrived at the detector 60 nanoseconds faster than light would have. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel ''at'' the speed of light. <br />
<br />
The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10<sup>−36</sup>kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc<sup>2</sup>. If we don't accept that, we have to do the calculations under classical physics, using SI (meter/kilogram/second) units.) The neutrinos were accelerated to an energy of about 17GeV, or .27x10<sup>−8</sup>Joules. If one did not accept relativity and had to use classical physics and the classical formula <math>\mathrm{E} = \frac{1}{2}mv^2</math>, one would get v=110x10<sup>12</sup> meters per second. This is about 370,000 times the speed of light, something that scientists would certainly have noticed. In fact, with special relativity, the speed is just under the speed of light, such that the neutrinos should be received at the detector about .26x10<sup>−24</sup> seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is far too small to measure&mdash;15 orders of magnitude smaller than the resolution of the GPS signals in the experiment.<br />
<br />
Later [http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/02/official-word-superluminal-neutrinos-leaves-warp-drive-fans-shred-hope%E2%80%94barely?ref=hp reports] started to resolve the mystery, and it is now accepted that the neutrinos behaved properly. But a BBC reporter made the incorrect statement that [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682 the neutrinos travelled at precisely light speed]. This was a simple misstatement, by .26 yoctoseconds.<br />
<br />
The issue was discussed at length at Conservapedia.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#Faster_than_light_neutrinos</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#The_final_nail_in_the_coffin_of_relativity.3F</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#Another_Blow_to_Relativity</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/109#Neutrinos_now_obey_speed_limit</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/111#Neutrinos</ref><br />
<br />
==Deducing the Equation From Empirical Observation==<br />
<br />
While the equation was historically developed on theoretical grounds as an inevitable consequence of special relativity, it is possible to deduce it purely from empirical observation.<br />
<br />
So, for the purposes of this section, imagine that one is in the era of "classical physics"; prior to 1900 or so. Relativity has not been invented, but, inexplicably, nuclear physics has. Imagine that the phenomena of radioactivity and nuclear fission have been observed, without any knowledge of relativity.<br />
<br />
A well-accepted physical law of classical physics was the law of conservation of mass. This was not easy to deduce. It required careful analysis of such phenomena as combustion, in the 1700s, to eliminate the various confounding sub-phenomena that made the law difficult to see. But, by 1900, the law was well established:<br />
<br />
:::*'''In all interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''<br />
<br />
For example, the mass of a TNT molecule is 227.1311 Daltons, or 227.1311 g/mol, which is, for all practical purposes, the same as the mass of its constituent Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen atoms. It is essentially impossible to measure the difference. The principle of conservation of mass is upheld.<br />
<br />
But when nuclear phenomena are discovered, we notice something different. The masses of the result particles after an event (e.g. alpha decay, nuclear fission, or artificial transmutation) is measurably less than the masses of the original particle(s). With the invention of the mass spectrometer around 1920, it became possible to measure atomic weights of various isotopes with great precision.<br />
<br />
Radium-226 decays into Radon-222 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 4.78 MeV.<br />
<br />
1&nbsp;kg of Radium-226 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{226.0254}</math> atoms. (The numerator is [[Avogadro's number]], and the denominator is the atomic weight of Radium-226.) This is 2.6643647 * 10<sup>24</sup> atoms.<br />
<br />
That number of Radon-222 atoms has mass .98226836&nbsp;kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01770863&nbsp;kg.<br />
The mass lost is .00002301&nbsp;kg.<br />
<br />
Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 4.78 MeV, or 4.78 * .1602 * 10<sup>−18</sup> Joules. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1&nbsp;kg of radium is 2.04 * 10<sup>12</sup> Joules.<br />
<br />
<br />
Also, Radon-222 decays into Polonium-218 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 5.49 MeV.<br />
<br />
1&nbsp;kg of Radon-222 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{222.0176}</math> atoms. This is 2.7124611 * 10<sup>24</sup> atoms.<br />
<br />
That number of Polonium-218 atoms has mass .98194467&nbsp;kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01802830&nbsp;kg.<br />
<br />
The mass lost is .00002703&nbsp;kg.<br />
<br />
Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 5.49 MeV. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1&nbsp;kg of polonium is 2.39 * 10<sup>12</sup> Joules.<br />
<br />
It looks as thought we have to rewrite the law of conservation of mass:<br />
<br />
:::*'''In all "ordinary" interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''<br />
:::*'''In nuclear interactions, there is a small but measurable loss of mass.'''<br />
<br />
:By the way, we can clearly see that atomic weights of pure isotopes are not integers, and that it has something to do with the energy released by nuclear disintegration. In retrospect, the formula E=mc&sup2; explains the non-integer character of atomic weights.<br />
<br />
Making special cases like this is unsatisfactory, of course.<br />
<br />
We do this for a few other interactions, including the explosion of TNT. This would include the Lithium-plus-Hydrogen and Uranium fission phenomena described above. We won't bother with the details. As observational scientists, we look for patterns in the behavior of nature. We make a table:<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" <br />
! interaction<br />
! energy released per kg, Joules<br />
! mass lost per kg of original substance, kg<br />
|-<br />
| explosion of TNT<br />
| 4.184 * 10<sup>6</sup><br />
| seems to be zero<br />
|-<br />
| alpha decay of Ra-226<br />
| 2.04 * 10<sup>12</sup><br />
| .00002301&nbsp;kg<br />
|-<br />
| alpha decay of Rn-222<br />
| 2.39 * 10<sup>12</sup><br />
| .00002703&nbsp;kg<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
We plot these, and a few others, not shown, on graph paper, and find to our amazement that the relationship is linear.<br />
<br />
For Ra, m/E = .112794118 E-16<br />
For Po, m/E = .113096234 E-16<br />
<br />
If this is linear, the mass defect for TNT would have been .47 * 10<sup>−10</sup>. We couldn't possibly have measured this.<br />
<br />
So we can rewrite the rule for conservation of mass in a more satisfactory way:<br />
<br />
:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to about .113 * 10<sup>-16</sup> kg per Joule of energy released.'''<br />
<br />
What we thought was exact conservation is just very nearly exact, and we hadn't been able to measure it before.<br />
<br />
But maybe there's more. This constant has dimensions of kilograms per Joule. From high-school physics, we know that that is seconds squared divided by meters squared. That is, it is the reciprocal of the square of a velocity. We calculate that velocity. It is about 2.97 * 10<sup>8</sup> meters per second. Very close to the speed of light! Very interesting! (The calculations above were not extremely precise. The formula has been verified with great precision, but not here.)<br />
<br />
We don't understand why (that will have to wait for the invention of relativity), but we can formulate a hypothesis:<br />
<br />
:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to <math>\frac{1}{c^2}</math> times the amount of energy released.'''<br />
<br />
We don't have to give the units any more, since everything is now dimensionally correct.<br />
<br />
::There is a very interesting analogy with the discovery of [[Maxwell's Equations]]. Maxwell found an interesting relationship involving the fundamental constants <math>\epsilon\,</math> and <math>\mu\,</math> appearing in his equations. Specifically, <math>\epsilon\mu\,</math> has the dimensions of seconds squared divided by meters squared, and that:<br />
<br />
:::::<math>\frac{1}{\epsilon\mu} = c^2</math><br />
<br />
::where "c" was the known velocity of light. He also showed that his equations predict electromagnetic waves, propagating at that speed.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Attempts to prove E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]]<br />
*[[E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /><br />
[[Category:Relativity]]<br />
[[Category:Laws of Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Physics]]</div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=1448334E=mc²2018-09-15T03:09:59Z<p>SamHB: /* The Cockcroft-Walton experiment */ After all the arguing over this, we never wikilinked it????</p>
<hr />
<div>'''E=mc&sup2;''' asserts that the energy ('''E''') in an unmoving particle is equal to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c&sup2;''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that particle.<ref>"Energy and mass are linked in the most famous relationship in physics: E = mc&sup2;. (The energy content of a body is equal to the mass of the body times the speed of light squared.)" [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/einstein-genius-among-geniuses.html Einstein: Genius Among Geniuses] - PBS's NOVA</ref> The complete form, when applied to moving objects, is [[E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2|E&sup2;=(mc&sup2;)&sup2;+(pc)&sup2;]], where '''p''' represents momentum,<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnMIhxWRGNw</ref> It is a statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[energy]]. In fact, no [[theory]] has successfully unified the [[law]]s governing [[mass]] (''i.e.'', [[gravity]]) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', [[electromagnetism]]), and numerous attempts to derive '''E=mc&sup2;''' from first principles have failed.<ref name="wvarticles">Five lectures at Wikiversity. The 4th one derives the formula, using the assumptions in the "What the Equation Means" section.<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/space,_time,_and_the_Lorentz_transform Lecture 1]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/momentum Lecture 2]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/energy Lecture 3]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/E_%3D_mc%C2%B2 Lecture 4]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/spacetime_diagrams_and_vectors Lecture 5]</ref> [[Politics|Political]] pressure, however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in [[science]] to even question the validity of this nonsensical [[equation]]. ''Simply put, E=mc&sup2; is [[liberal claptrap]]''.<br />
<br />
The formula asserts that the mass of an object, at constant energy, magically varies precisely in inverse proportion to the square of a change in the speed of light over time,<ref>http://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html</ref> which violates [[conservation of mass]] and disagrees with commonsense.<ref>The formula asserts that the mass of an object has energy associated with it, even when it is not moving (p=0). The formula asserts a relationship between the rest mass of an object, its energy and the speed of light. According to the formula, the apparent mass of an object depends on its energy and so [[conservation of mass]] is not satisfied. Instead, relativity proposes that the total energy of a [[closed system]] is conserved, when we &quot;convert&quot; the masses into energies using this formula.</ref><br />
<br />
Physicists have never been able to unify light with matter<ref>Quantum Electrodynamics describes how matter interacts with matter, the standard model of particle physics describes how matter (fermions) interact with bosons (force carriers) for the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces. To date, no theory has been proven to unify gravity with electromagnetism.</ref> despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so.<ref>Much of 20th century physics has centered around the interactions between photons (light) and fermionic matter, and much more than a billion dollars has been spent on this. But that doesn't imply that they have been "unified".</ref> [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]] predicts that there is no unified theory of light and matter because they were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]].<br />
<br />
[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic [[energy]] of an object (such as an [[atom]]) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to the accepted view (as predicted by [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]) that the forces of nature have not been unified. Liberal scientists assert the formula E=mc&sup2; is not limited to nuclear reactions; it applies to chemical reactions and even to the energy stored in a compressed spring.<ref>http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99140.htm</ref><br />
<br />
The claim that '''E=mc&sup2;''' has never yielded anything of value and it has often been used as a redefinition of &quot;[[energy]]&quot; for pseudo-scientific purposes by non-scientific journals. Claims can be found not only on liberal, second-tier college websites but at those of [[Baylor]] and the [[MIT]] that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation and [[nuclear weapon]]s ([[nuclear fusion]] and [[nuclear fission]]) and about [[antimatter]].<ref>[http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/E=mcsquared/index.html John D. Norton ''Einstein for everyone - E=mc²''], Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Pittsburgh</ref><ref>[http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/releng.html Rod Nave ''HpyerPhysics - Relativistic Energy''], Georgia State University</ref><ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html Peter Tyson ''The Legacy of E=mc&sup2;''] October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''.</ref><br />
<br />
The [[Theory of Relativity]] has never been able to mathematically derive '''E=mc&sup2;''' from first principles,<ref name="wvarticles"/> and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H Eugene Hecht: ''How Einstein confirmed E<sub>0</sub>=mc&sup2;'', American Journal of Physics, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp. 591-600 (2011)]</ref> Nevertheless, Robert Dicke - one of the most accomplished American-born physicists and experimental physicists in history - found it unlikely that the equivalence was wrong.<ref>R. H. Dicke "The Theoretical Significance of Experimental Relativity", Gordon and Breach, 1964</ref><br />
<br />
It has been known for a long time that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by [[Henri Poincaré]] in 1904,<ref>[http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540 Herbert E. Ives ''Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation'', JOSA, Vol. 42, Issue 8, pp. 540-543 (1952)]</ref> but the equation '''E=mc&sup2;''' makes a claim far beyond that limited circumstance:<br />
<br />
{{cquote|The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).|||[[Herbert Ives]], 1952}}<br />
<!--In 1907, [[Max Planck]] proved in his fundamental paper that the formula ''E=mc&sup2;'' is not a general law and any system submitted to an external pressure will obey a different law: its mass will be proportional to its enthalpy ''H=E+PV'', that is, ''m=H/c&sup2;''<ref name="Capria">{{cite book |author=Marco M. Capria, Aubert Daigneaut et al. |title=Physics Before and After Einstein |publisher=IOS Press |year=2005 |chapter=2.Mechanics and Electromagnetism... |pages=43|isbn=1-58603-462-6 |url=http://www.dmi.unipg.it/~mamone/pubb/PBAE.pdf |quote=}}</ref>.--><br />
<br />
== Description for the layman ==<br />
<br />
The equation is extremely famous, and just as extremely misunderstood, in popular culture. Among the more outlandish claims are statements to the effect that "E=mc&sup2; holds the secret of the atomic bomb."<ref>Not so. The energy of the atomic bomb comes not from E=mc&sup2;, but from the tension between the electrostatic force and the strong nuclear force. E=mc&sup2; simply meant that the fission products from the [[Little Boy|Hiroshima]] bomb weighed 0.7 grams less than the original Uranium.</ref><br />
[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|<br />
*"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>]]<br />
The equation has acquired something of a "cult" status. In the USA, the popular ''[[Twilight Zone]]'' series featured '''E=mc&sup2;''' prominently, giving the equation greater currency with the public. The song ''[[Albert Einstein|Einstein]] A Go-Go'' by the band Landscape had a similar effect in the UK in the 1980s. The equation was the title of a single by ''Big Audio Dynamite'' in 1985, and an album by Mariah Carey in 2008. Some movies have been themed on this equation.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322120/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_2, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116160/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_1</ref> The equation, along with a picture of a mushroom cloud and a picture of [[Albert Einstein]], were featured on the front cover of an issue of ''Time'' magazine in 1946. All of this is disappointing when one considers how few people actually understand what the equation is saying.<br />
<br />
A number of science writers&mdash;both serious scientists and science popularizers&mdash;have at various times written their own explanation of the equation. Some of these are helpful; many are not. One of the better ones, though not without its share of nonsense, is a NOVA series by the [[Public Broadcasting Service]]<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/ancestors-einstein.html David Bodanis ''Ancestors of E=mc&sup2;''], Nov 10, 2005, NOVA</ref><br />
<br />
In 2005 The PBS NOVA series also asked 10 physicists to describe the equation in layman's terms.<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html Lexi Krock, David Levin (editors) ''E=mc&sup2; explained'', June, 2005. PBS ''NOVA'']</ref> Here is a sample of five of the statements:<br />
{{cquote|''It's something that doesn't happen in your kitchen or in everyday life.''|||[[Neil deGrasse Tyson]], Astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History}}{{cquote|''When an object emits light, say, a flashlight, it gets lighter.''|||Sheldon Glashow, Theoretical Physicist and Nobel Laureate, Boston University}}{{cquote|''Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.''|||Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University}}{{cquote|''You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.''|||Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University}}{{<br />
cquote|''It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.''|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}<br />
<br />
Of these, only the Sheldon Glashow quote makes a specific and meaningful statement about what the equation means.<br />
<br />
== What the Equation Means ==<br />
The equation is about energy, both kinetic energy and potential energy.<br />
<br />
Kinetic energy is actual visible energy, that is, energy of things that are in motion. It's the energy of a thrown baseball. Radiation (for example, light) also counts as kinetic energy&mdash;it's the motion of photons. Light carries energy, force, and momentum. The force carried by light is not as obvious as the force of a thrown baseball, but it is there. The force of sunlight has been proposed for long-term space travel. It is also the force that causes the [[Pioneer anomaly]] and the force that makes a comet's tail stream away from the Sun.<br />
<br />
Potential energy is the other kind&mdash;"hidden" energy. It can become kinetic energy, or vice-versa. A wound up spring, a charged battery, a stretched rubber band, a mixture of gasoline and air, an explosive, and a radioactive atom, all have potential energy. It's what is needed to make the principle of conservation of energy work. That is, when kinetic energy comes into existence, it's because potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. The wound-up spring of a clock has potential energy, that runs down over time, being converted into the kinetic energy of the ticking sound. A battery has potential energy that runs down when it provides electricity to make things move. Various chemical substances have characteristic amounts of potential energy, that may be converted to or from kinetic energy when chemical reactions occur. For example, Sodium and Chlorine have more potential energy than Sodium Chloride. Explosives have more potential energy than their constituent atoms. Radioactive atoms have more potential energy than their "daughter" atoms.<br />
<br />
The principle of ''conservation of energy'', universally accepted for well over 100 years, says<br />
<br />
::Total energy (kinetic + potential) is always conserved.<br />
<br />
Hundreds of years of research by chemists (and, before that, the alchemists) worked out the potential energies that are characteristic of various substances, and that the potential and kinetic energies are accurately converted from one to the other, leading to the principle of conservation of total energy.<br />
<br />
An interesting fact is that, normally, one considers only ''changes'' in potential energy; one doesn't need an absolute scale. A rock at the top of a hill has more potential energy than after it rolls to the bottom of the hill, but the energy at the bottom isn't necessarily zero. We could dig a hole and let it roll down farther, with its energy going negative. Only changes matter. Now it turns out that, once one accepts the implications of E=mc², one ''could'' assign an absolute potential energy to something&mdash;its mass times c², and changes in potential energy would work out correctly because of the mass changes. But that isn't necessary, and, in any case, it would require accepting E=mc² and would therefore be getting ahead of the story.<br />
<br />
<br />
With those preliminaries out of the way, it is possible to give a concise explanation of what the equation means:<br />
<br />
::'''Potential energy has mass.'''<br />
<br />
That is, it weighs something. Whenever anything has potential energy of any kind in it, improbable as this may sound, it weighs more. The proportionality constant is 1/c<sup>2</sup>, or 1.11 x 10<sup>−17</sup> kilograms per joule. A fresh battery weighs more than a spent one, a wound-up alarm clock weighs more than a run-down one, etc.<br />
<br />
Now that's way too small to measure for anything other than nuclear reactions, which is why it escaped everyone's notice for so long. But it has been measured and experimentally verified for nuclear transformations all across the periodic table.<br />
<br />
:There's an interesting parallel with heat. Before the rise of thermodynamics, it was believed that heat was a "substance". That substance was called "caloric". When heat travels from one body to another, what was really happening was presumed to be a transfer of caloric. Much effort was put into measuring the mass of this mysterious "substance". It was always found to be zero, and we now know that what is actually being transferred is thermal energy. So it is not unheard-of to assign mass to intangible properties.<br />
<br />
The nonzero mass of potential energy, and the equation E=mc², were determined on theoretical grounds, before any experimental observations were made. The logic of this follows from these assumptions:<br />
<br />
#Galilean and Newtonian mechanics.<br />
#Galilean relativity, that is, the notion that there is no absolute frame of reference.<br />
#Conservation of energy.<br />
#Conservation of momentum. (So far this is just classical physics.)<br />
#The universality of the speed of light. (That is, special relativity.)<br />
<br />
Keep in mind that, under special relativity, it's not just space and time that need to be redefined. The definitions of momentum and energy need to change also. This is necessary so that the '''conservation of energy and of momentum will be absolutely precise in all circumstances.'''<br />
<br />
Under classical Newtonian mechanics, the momentum and kinetic energy of a moving mass are<br />
:<math>p = mv\,</math><br />
and<br />
:<math>E = \frac{1}{2}mv^2\,</math><br />
respectively. But under special relativity they are<br />
:<math>p = \frac{mv}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}\,</math><br />
and<br />
:<math>E = mc^2\left(\frac{1}{1 - v^2/c^2} - 1\right)\,</math><br />
One can verify that, in the non-relativistic limit, the relativistic values converge to the classical ones.<br />
<br />
It is this requirement, and some "gedanken experiments" involving conversion between potential and kinetic energy, that lead to E=mc².<ref name="wvarticles"/> These experiments involve some kind of object that isn't moving (though there might be internal motion that doesn't figure in the experiment) and therefore has no kinetic energy and only potential energy, turning into some things that have kinetic energy. The requirements of strict conservation of total momentum and total energy prove the equation.<br />
<br />
Einstein's famous derivation<ref name="einstein1905b">[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?" Albert Einstein, Sept 1905]</ref> involved light instead of tangible objects, but the result is the same.<br />
<br />
==History of Experimental Verification==<br />
Because the change in mass arising from a given release of energy is so small (<math>1/c^2</math>, which 1.11 x 10<sup>−17</sup> kilograms per joule), it is essentially impossible to check this equation for normal processes. For example, a flashlight battery loses about 1 picogram of mass when it discharges, and the resultant atoms from the detonation of 1 kilogram of TNT weigh 47 nanograms less than the TNT. Even if all the particles of smoke and gas could be collected reliably, the difference couldn't be detected.<br />
<br />
Measuring the effect requires process that release vastly more energy than ordinary chemical processes. The discovery of Radium and Polonium around 1898 gave a tantalizing hint that there were processes that released far more energy than chemical processes could account for. These elements continuously released measurable heat, and also glowed in the dark.<br />
<br />
Einstein touched on this possibility in his original 1905 paper.<ref name=einstein1905b/><br />
{{cquote|''It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully put to the test.''}}It would take more than a decade to develop an understanding of the nuclear process involved. The first thing that was required was accurate knowledge of atomic weights.<br />
<br />
Atomic weights of the various elements were first measured, with accuracy of a few decimal places, by J. J. Berzelius in the late 1820s. This required extremely painstaking (for the time) measurements. The figures were refined to even more accuracy by J. A. R. Newlands in the 1860s. The values were accurate enough to clearly show the rather interesting property that the atomic weights were nearly integers, but not exactly so. The reason for this would turn out to be partly because of different isotopes (discovered by Frederick Soddy in 1913) and partly because of E=mc<sup>2</sup>.<br />
<br />
In 1907 Rutherford determined that the "alpha" radiation from Radium was Helium. In 1911 he formulated the theory of the nucleus. In 1919 he demonstrated that nuclear transmutations could take place, such as<br />
<br />
::<math>{}_7^{14}\mathrm{N}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}\,\rightarrow\, {}_8^{17}\mathrm{O}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}</math><br />
<br />
The discovery of Radon, and much further investigation, revealed that the behavior of Radium was<br />
<br />
::<math>{}_{88}^{226}\mathrm{Ra}\,\rightarrow\, {}_{86}^{222}\mathrm{Rn}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math><br />
and<br />
::<math>{}_{86}^{222}\mathrm{Rn}\,\rightarrow\, {}_{84}^{218}\mathrm{Po}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math><br />
<br />
Accurate ways of measuring speed of a charged particle, by deflecting it in a magnetic field, had been developed by then, so that, by very painstaking observation and measurement, it was determined that the first alpha particle (Helium nucleus) had an energy of 4.78 MeV and the second an energy of 5.49 Mev. This confirmed E=mc<sup>2</sup> up to the accuracy of the measurements. The equation, along with knowledge of isotope mixes, now explained why the atomic weights appearing in the periodic table were nearly integers, but not exactly so.<br />
<br />
Around 1925, the development of the mass spectrograph, by Francis Aston, made it possible to measure atomic weights to extreme precision.<br />
<br />
The 1932 Cockcroft-Walton experiment, described in more detail below, started to make the equation famous by confirming it, with reasonable accuracy, for an artificially induced nuclear reaction. (Confirming E=mc<sup>2</sup> was not a goal of the experiment; it was an incidental consequence. The equation had already been known and understood for many years.)<br />
<br />
In the decades since, nuclear transmutations have been performed, in particle accelerators, all over the periodic table, observing in detail the properties of various isotopes. These have confirmed E=mc<sup>2</sup> with great precision. See [[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]].<br />
<br />
==The Rainville test==<br />
Perhaps the most precise direct empirical verification of E=mc<sup>2</sup> was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville ''et. al.''<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref> The article states that &quot;Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−&Delta;mc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10<sup>−7</sup>, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described.&quot;<br />
<br />
==The [[Cockcroft and Walton Experiment|Cockcroft/Walton experiment]]==<br />
This experiment is not one of the ones usually cited as validating E=mc². That was not its goal. The generally accepted important tests of this equation are the measurements of alpha decay energies, described above.<br />
<br />
In 1932 English physicist John Cockcroft and Irish physicist Ernest Walton performed the first artificial nuclear transmutation of nuclei, for which they were awarded the 1951 [[Nobel Prize]] in physics.<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf John D. Cockroft ''Experiments on the interaction of high-speed nucleons with atomic nuclei''], Nobel Lecture, Dec 11, 1951</ref> The award was for ''&quot;their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles.&quot;''<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/# Nobel Prize Organization]</ref> <br />
<br />
Verifying E=mc² was not the goal of the experiment, and the Nobel prize was awarded for the transmutation itself, not any verification of the equation. This experiment could not possibly have proved any general truth to the equation. But data from this experiment was consistent with the equation for the particular transmutation involved.<br />
<br />
They bombarded [[Lithium]] atoms with [[protons]] having a [[kinetic energy]] less than 1 [[Electron-Volts|MeV]]. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[alpha particle]]s, for which the [[kinetic energy]] was measured as 17.3 MeV<br />
<br />
:::::<math>{}_3^7\mathrm{Li}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}\,\rightarrow\,2\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math><br />
<br />
The mass of the particles on the left hand side is 8.0263 [[atomic mass units|amu]], the mass on the right hand side ''only'' 8.0077 amu.<ref>Gerard Piel ''The age of science: what scientists learned in the 20th century'', Basic Books, 2001, p. 144-145</ref> The difference between this masses is .00186 amu, which results in the following back-of-an-envelope calculation:<br />
<br />
::::<math>0.00186\,\mathrm{amu} \cdot c^2 = 0.0186 \cdot 1.66 \cdot 10^{-27}\,\mathrm{kg}\cdot\left(3\cdot10^8\,\mathrm{\frac{m}{s}}\right)^2</math><br />
::::<math>\approx\,2.79\cdot 10^{-12} \,\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}</math><br />
::::<math>\approx \,17.3\,\mathrm{MeV}</math><br />
<br />
Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:<br />
<br />
==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==<br />
<br />
For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc&sup2;. (The equation applies to '''all''' interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc&sup2; applies only to nuclear interactions.)<br />
<br />
The [[Theory of Relativity]] played no role in this work, but proponents later tried to retrofit the theory to the data in order to explain the explain the observed mass changes.<ref>Actually, the formula E=mc<sup>2</sup> was published in 1905, and has not changed since then. Fission of Uranium was discovered in 1938. It is not possible that the equation was retrofitted to explain this discovery.</ref> Here is the most famous example of the mass change.<br />
<br />
Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by [[Otto Hahn]] and [[Fritz Strassman]], and analyzed by [[Lise Meitner]], in 1938.<br />
<br />
There are a great number of decay paths of [[Uranium]] fission that figured in this experiment. The result element that most caught their attention was [[Barium]], because it was chemically related to the Radium that they were expecting. One of the fission paths may have been this:<br />
<br />
:<sup>235</sup>U &rarr; <sup>140</sup>Xe + <sup>91</sup>Sr + 4n<br />
<br />
(The [[Xenon]] decayed within about a minute to <sup>140</sup>Ba. They were searching for the chemical signature of Barium.)<br />
<br />
The masses of the particles are:<br />
<br />
{| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; border=&quot;1&quot; cellpadding=&quot;8&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; <br />
! Substance<br />
! <sup>235</sup>U<br />
! <sup>140</sup>Xe<br />
! <sup>91</sup>Sr<br />
! 4 neutrons<br />
|-<br />
| Number of protons<br />
| 92<br />
| 54<br />
| 38<br />
| 0<br />
|-<br />
| Number of neutrons<br />
| 235<br />
| 140<br />
| 91<br />
| 4<br />
|-<br />
| Number of electrons<br />
| 92<br />
| 54<br />
| 38<br />
| 0<br />
|-<br />
| Mass<br />
| 235.04393<br />
| 139.92164<br />
| 90.910203<br />
| 4.03466<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The mass of the Uranium atom is 235.04393, and the sum of the masses of the products is 234.866503. The difference is .177427 amu, or, using the E=mc&sup2; equation, 165 million electron volts. (The generally accepted value for the total energy released by Uranium fission, including secondary decays, is about 200 million electron volts.)<br />
<br />
The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate &quot;mass defect&quot; quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc&sup2; equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.<br />
<br />
==A Topical Example: Speed of Extremely Energetic Neutrinos==<br />
Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. In 2011 there were [http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos?newsfeed=true reports] that high-energy neutrinos had been observed traveling at a speed faster than the speed of light in an experiment at the Gran Sasso laboratory in Italy. Specifically, they seemed to have arrived at the detector 60 nanoseconds faster than light would have. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel ''at'' the speed of light. <br />
<br />
The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10<sup>−36</sup>kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc<sup>2</sup>. If we don't accept that, we have to do the calculations under classical physics, using SI (meter/kilogram/second) units.) The neutrinos were accelerated to an energy of about 17GeV, or .27x10<sup>−8</sup>Joules. If one did not accept relativity and had to use classical physics and the classical formula <math>\mathrm{E} = \frac{1}{2}mv^2</math>, one would get v=110x10<sup>12</sup> meters per second. This is about 370,000 times the speed of light, something that scientists would certainly have noticed. In fact, with special relativity, the speed is just under the speed of light, such that the neutrinos should be received at the detector about .26x10<sup>−24</sup> seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is far too small to measure&mdash;15 orders of magnitude smaller than the resolution of the GPS signals in the experiment.<br />
<br />
Later [http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/02/official-word-superluminal-neutrinos-leaves-warp-drive-fans-shred-hope%E2%80%94barely?ref=hp reports] started to resolve the mystery, and it is now accepted that the neutrinos behaved properly. But a BBC reporter made the incorrect statement that [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682 the neutrinos travelled at precisely light speed]. This was a simple misstatement, by .26 yoctoseconds.<br />
<br />
The issue was discussed at length at Conservapedia.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#Faster_than_light_neutrinos</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#The_final_nail_in_the_coffin_of_relativity.3F</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#Another_Blow_to_Relativity</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/109#Neutrinos_now_obey_speed_limit</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/111#Neutrinos</ref><br />
<br />
==Deducing the Equation From Empirical Observation==<br />
<br />
While the equation was historically developed on theoretical grounds as an inevitable consequence of special relativity, it is possible to deduce it purely from empirical observation.<br />
<br />
So, for the purposes of this section, imagine that one is in the era of "classical physics"; prior to 1900 or so. Relativity has not been invented, but, inexplicably, nuclear physics has. Imagine that the phenomena of radioactivity and nuclear fission have been observed, without any knowledge of relativity.<br />
<br />
A well-accepted physical law of classical physics was the law of conservation of mass. This was not easy to deduce. It required careful analysis of such phenomena as combustion, in the 1700s, to eliminate the various confounding sub-phenomena that made the law difficult to see. But, by 1900, the law was well established:<br />
<br />
:::*'''In all interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''<br />
<br />
For example, the mass of a TNT molecule is 227.1311 Daltons, or 227.1311 g/mol, which is, for all practical purposes, the same as the mass of its constituent Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen atoms. It is essentially impossible to measure the difference. The principle of conservation of mass is upheld.<br />
<br />
But when nuclear phenomena are discovered, we notice something different. The masses of the result particles after an event (e.g. alpha decay, nuclear fission, or artificial transmutation) is measurably less than the masses of the original particle(s). With the invention of the mass spectrometer around 1920, it became possible to measure atomic weights of various isotopes with great precision.<br />
<br />
Radium-226 decays into Radon-222 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 4.78 MeV.<br />
<br />
1&nbsp;kg of Radium-226 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{226.0254}</math> atoms. (The numerator is [[Avogadro's number]], and the denominator is the atomic weight of Radium-226.) This is 2.6643647 * 10<sup>24</sup> atoms.<br />
<br />
That number of Radon-222 atoms has mass .98226836&nbsp;kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01770863&nbsp;kg.<br />
The mass lost is .00002301&nbsp;kg.<br />
<br />
Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 4.78 MeV, or 4.78 * .1602 * 10<sup>−18</sup> Joules. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1&nbsp;kg of radium is 2.04 * 10<sup>12</sup> Joules.<br />
<br />
<br />
Also, Radon-222 decays into Polonium-218 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 5.49 MeV.<br />
<br />
1&nbsp;kg of Radon-222 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{222.0176}</math> atoms. This is 2.7124611 * 10<sup>24</sup> atoms.<br />
<br />
That number of Polonium-218 atoms has mass .98194467&nbsp;kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01802830&nbsp;kg.<br />
<br />
The mass lost is .00002703&nbsp;kg.<br />
<br />
Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 5.49 MeV. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1&nbsp;kg of polonium is 2.39 * 10<sup>12</sup> Joules.<br />
<br />
It looks as thought we have to rewrite the law of conservation of mass:<br />
<br />
:::*'''In all "ordinary" interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''<br />
:::*'''In nuclear interactions, there is a small but measurable loss of mass.'''<br />
<br />
:By the way, we can clearly see that atomic weights of pure isotopes are not integers, and that it has something to do with the energy released by nuclear disintegration. In retrospect, the formula E=mc&sup2; explains the non-integer character of atomic weights.<br />
<br />
Making special cases like this is unsatisfactory, of course.<br />
<br />
We do this for a few other interactions, including the explosion of TNT. This would include the Lithium-plus-Hydrogen and Uranium fission phenomena described above. We won't bother with the details. As observational scientists, we look for patterns in the behavior of nature. We make a table:<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" <br />
! interaction<br />
! energy released per kg, Joules<br />
! mass lost per kg of original substance, kg<br />
|-<br />
| explosion of TNT<br />
| 4.184 * 10<sup>6</sup><br />
| seems to be zero<br />
|-<br />
| alpha decay of Ra-226<br />
| 2.04 * 10<sup>12</sup><br />
| .00002301&nbsp;kg<br />
|-<br />
| alpha decay of Rn-222<br />
| 2.39 * 10<sup>12</sup><br />
| .00002703&nbsp;kg<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
We plot these, and a few others, not shown, on graph paper, and find to our amazement that the relationship is linear.<br />
<br />
For Ra, m/E = .112794118 E-16<br />
For Po, m/E = .113096234 E-16<br />
<br />
If this is linear, the mass defect for TNT would have been .47 * 10<sup>−10</sup>. We couldn't possibly have measured this.<br />
<br />
So we can rewrite the rule for conservation of mass in a more satisfactory way:<br />
<br />
:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to about .113 * 10<sup>-16</sup> kg per Joule of energy released.'''<br />
<br />
What we thought was exact conservation is just very nearly exact, and we hadn't been able to measure it before.<br />
<br />
But maybe there's more. This constant has dimensions of kilograms per Joule. From high-school physics, we know that that is seconds squared divided by meters squared. That is, it is the reciprocal of the square of a velocity. We calculate that velocity. It is about 2.97 * 10<sup>8</sup> meters per second. Very close to the speed of light! Very interesting! (The calculations above were not extremely precise. The formula has been verified with great precision, but not here.)<br />
<br />
We don't understand why (that will have to wait for the invention of relativity), but we can formulate a hypothesis:<br />
<br />
:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to <math>\frac{1}{c^2}</math> times the amount of energy released.'''<br />
<br />
We don't have to give the units any more, since everything is now dimensionally correct.<br />
<br />
::There is a very interesting analogy with the discovery of [[Maxwell's Equations]]. Maxwell found an interesting relationship involving the fundamental constants <math>\epsilon\,</math> and <math>\mu\,</math> appearing in his equations. Specifically, <math>\epsilon\mu\,</math> has the dimensions of seconds squared divided by meters squared, and that:<br />
<br />
:::::<math>\frac{1}{\epsilon\mu} = c^2</math><br />
<br />
::where "c" was the known velocity of light. He also showed that his equations predict electromagnetic waves, propagating at that speed.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Attempts to prove E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]]<br />
*[[E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /><br />
[[Category:Relativity]]<br />
[[Category:Laws of Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Physics]]</div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=When_We_Were_Young&diff=1448312When We Were Young2018-09-15T02:22:55Z<p>SamHB: Get the title right. Someone ought to rename this.</p>
<hr />
<div>'''When We Were Very Young''' is a book made out of several poems by [[A.A. Milne]]. This book was illustrated by Ernest Shepard, who made the first pictures of Winnie the Pooh. There is actually a poem in it about Pooh, but he is called Edward Bear. <br />
<br />
[[Category:Poetry]]<br />
[[Category:English Literature]]</div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=1448028E=mc²2018-09-14T16:53:13Z<p>SamHB: The Cockcroft-Walton experiment -- we already point that out; no need to say it again.</p>
<hr />
<div>'''E=mc&sup2;''' asserts that the energy ('''E''') in an unmoving particle is equal to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c&sup2;''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that particle.<ref>"Energy and mass are linked in the most famous relationship in physics: E = mc&sup2;. (The energy content of a body is equal to the mass of the body times the speed of light squared.)" [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/einstein-genius-among-geniuses.html Einstein: Genius Among Geniuses] - PBS's NOVA</ref> The complete form, when applied to moving objects, is [[E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2|E&sup2;=(mc&sup2;)&sup2;+(pc)&sup2;]], where '''p''' represents momentum,<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnMIhxWRGNw</ref> It is a statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[energy]]. In fact, no [[theory]] has successfully unified the [[law]]s governing [[mass]] (''i.e.'', [[gravity]]) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', [[electromagnetism]]), and numerous attempts to derive '''E=mc&sup2;''' from first principles have failed.<ref name="wvarticles">Five lectures at Wikiversity. The 4th one derives the formula, using the assumptions in the "What the Equation Means" section.<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/space,_time,_and_the_Lorentz_transform Lecture 1]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/momentum Lecture 2]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/energy Lecture 3]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/E_%3D_mc%C2%B2 Lecture 4]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/spacetime_diagrams_and_vectors Lecture 5]</ref> [[Politics|Political]] pressure, however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in [[science]] to even question the validity of this nonsensical [[equation]]. ''Simply put, E=mc&sup2; is [[liberal claptrap]]''.<br />
<br />
The formula asserts that the mass of an object, at constant energy, magically varies precisely in inverse proportion to the square of a change in the speed of light over time,<ref>http://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html</ref> which violates [[conservation of mass]] and disagrees with commonsense.<ref>The formula asserts that the mass of an object has energy associated with it, even when it is not moving (p=0). The formula asserts a relationship between the rest mass of an object, its energy and the speed of light. According to the formula, the apparent mass of an object depends on its energy and so [[conservation of mass]] is not satisfied. Instead, relativity proposes that the total energy of a [[closed system]] is conserved, when we &quot;convert&quot; the masses into energies using this formula.</ref><br />
<br />
Physicists have never been able to unify light with matter<ref>Quantum Electrodynamics describes how matter interacts with matter, the standard model of particle physics describes how matter (fermions) interact with bosons (force carriers) for the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces. To date, no theory has been proven to unify gravity with electromagnetism.</ref> despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so.<ref>Much of 20th century physics has centered around the interactions between photons (light) and fermionic matter, and much more than a billion dollars has been spent on this. But that doesn't imply that they have been "unified".</ref> [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]] predicts that there is no unified theory of light and matter because they were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]].<br />
<br />
[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic [[energy]] of an object (such as an [[atom]]) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to the accepted view (as predicted by [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]) that the forces of nature have not been unified. Liberal scientists assert the formula E=mc&sup2; is not limited to nuclear reactions; it applies to chemical reactions and even to the energy stored in a compressed spring.<ref>http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99140.htm</ref><br />
<br />
The claim that '''E=mc&sup2;''' has never yielded anything of value and it has often been used as a redefinition of &quot;[[energy]]&quot; for pseudo-scientific purposes by non-scientific journals. Claims can be found not only on liberal, second-tier college websites but at those of [[Baylor]] and the [[MIT]] that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation and [[nuclear weapon]]s ([[nuclear fusion]] and [[nuclear fission]]) and about [[antimatter]].<ref>[http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/E=mcsquared/index.html John D. Norton ''Einstein for everyone - E=mc²''], Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Pittsburgh</ref><ref>[http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/releng.html Rod Nave ''HpyerPhysics - Relativistic Energy''], Georgia State University</ref><ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html Peter Tyson ''The Legacy of E=mc&sup2;''] October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''.</ref><br />
<br />
The [[Theory of Relativity]] has never been able to mathematically derive '''E=mc&sup2;''' from first principles,<ref name="wvarticles"/> and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H Eugene Hecht: ''How Einstein confirmed E<sub>0</sub>=mc&sup2;'', American Journal of Physics, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp. 591-600 (2011)]</ref> Nevertheless, Robert Dicke - one of the most accomplished American-born physicists and experimental physicists in history - found it unlikely that the equivalence was wrong.<ref>R. H. Dicke "The Theoretical Significance of Experimental Relativity", Gordon and Breach, 1964</ref><br />
<br />
It has been known for a long time that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by [[Henri Poincaré]] in 1904,<ref>[http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540 Herbert E. Ives ''Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation'', JOSA, Vol. 42, Issue 8, pp. 540-543 (1952)]</ref> but the equation '''E=mc&sup2;''' makes a claim far beyond that limited circumstance:<br />
<br />
{{cquote|The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).|||[[Herbert Ives]], 1952}}<br />
<!--In 1907, [[Max Planck]] proved in his fundamental paper that the formula ''E=mc&sup2;'' is not a general law and any system submitted to an external pressure will obey a different law: its mass will be proportional to its enthalpy ''H=E+PV'', that is, ''m=H/c&sup2;''<ref name="Capria">{{cite book |author=Marco M. Capria, Aubert Daigneaut et al. |title=Physics Before and After Einstein |publisher=IOS Press |year=2005 |chapter=2.Mechanics and Electromagnetism... |pages=43|isbn=1-58603-462-6 |url=http://www.dmi.unipg.it/~mamone/pubb/PBAE.pdf |quote=}}</ref>.--><br />
<br />
== Description for the layman ==<br />
<br />
The equation is extremely famous, and just as extremely misunderstood, in popular culture. Among the more outlandish claims are statements to the effect that "E=mc&sup2; holds the secret of the atomic bomb."<ref>Not so. The energy of the atomic bomb comes not from E=mc&sup2;, but from the tension between the electrostatic force and the strong nuclear force. E=mc&sup2; simply meant that the fission products from the [[Little Boy|Hiroshima]] bomb weighed 0.7 grams less than the original Uranium.</ref><br />
[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|<br />
*"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>]]<br />
The equation has acquired something of a "cult" status. In the USA, the popular ''[[Twilight Zone]]'' series featured '''E=mc&sup2;''' prominently, giving the equation greater currency with the public. The song ''[[Albert Einstein|Einstein]] A Go-Go'' by the band Landscape had a similar effect in the UK in the 1980s. The equation was the title of a single by ''Big Audio Dynamite'' in 1985, and an album by Mariah Carey in 2008. Some movies have been themed on this equation.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322120/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_2, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116160/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_1</ref> The equation, along with a picture of a mushroom cloud and a picture of [[Albert Einstein]], were featured on the front cover of an issue of ''Time'' magazine in 1946. All of this is disappointing when one considers how few people actually understand what the equation is saying.<br />
<br />
A number of science writers&mdash;both serious scientists and science popularizers&mdash;have at various times written their own explanation of the equation. Some of these are helpful; many are not. One of the better ones, though not without its share of nonsense, is a NOVA series by the [[Public Broadcasting Service]]<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/ancestors-einstein.html David Bodanis ''Ancestors of E=mc&sup2;''], Nov 10, 2005, NOVA</ref><br />
<br />
In 2005 The PBS NOVA series also asked 10 physicists to describe the equation in layman's terms.<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html Lexi Krock, David Levin (editors) ''E=mc&sup2; explained'', June, 2005. PBS ''NOVA'']</ref> Here is a sample of five of the statements:<br />
{{cquote|''It's something that doesn't happen in your kitchen or in everyday life.''|||[[Neil deGrasse Tyson]], Astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History}}{{cquote|''When an object emits light, say, a flashlight, it gets lighter.''|||Sheldon Glashow, Theoretical Physicist and Nobel Laureate, Boston University}}{{cquote|''Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.''|||Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University}}{{cquote|''You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.''|||Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University}}{{<br />
cquote|''It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.''|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}<br />
<br />
Of these, only the Sheldon Glashow quote makes a specific and meaningful statement about what the equation means.<br />
<br />
== What the Equation Means ==<br />
The equation is about energy, both kinetic energy and potential energy.<br />
<br />
Kinetic energy is actual visible energy, that is, energy of things that are in motion. It's the energy of a thrown baseball. Radiation (for example, light) also counts as kinetic energy&mdash;it's the motion of photons. Light carries energy, force, and momentum. The force carried by light is not as obvious as the force of a thrown baseball, but it is there. The force of sunlight has been proposed for long-term space travel. It is also the force that causes the [[Pioneer anomaly]] and the force that makes a comet's tail stream away from the Sun.<br />
<br />
Potential energy is the other kind&mdash;"hidden" energy. It can become kinetic energy, or vice-versa. A wound up spring, a charged battery, a stretched rubber band, a mixture of gasoline and air, an explosive, and a radioactive atom, all have potential energy. It's what is needed to make the principle of conservation of energy work. That is, when kinetic energy comes into existence, it's because potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. The wound-up spring of a clock has potential energy, that runs down over time, being converted into the kinetic energy of the ticking sound. A battery has potential energy that runs down when it provides electricity to make things move. Various chemical substances have characteristic amounts of potential energy, that may be converted to or from kinetic energy when chemical reactions occur. For example, Sodium and Chlorine have more potential energy than Sodium Chloride. Explosives have more potential energy than their constituent atoms. Radioactive atoms have more potential energy than their "daughter" atoms.<br />
<br />
The principle of ''conservation of energy'', universally accepted for well over 100 years, says<br />
<br />
::Total energy (kinetic + potential) is always conserved.<br />
<br />
Hundreds of years of research by chemists (and, before that, the alchemists) worked out the potential energies that are characteristic of various substances, and that the potential and kinetic energies are accurately converted from one to the other, leading to the principle of conservation of total energy.<br />
<br />
An interesting fact is that, normally, one considers only ''changes'' in potential energy; one doesn't need an absolute scale. A rock at the top of a hill has more potential energy than after it rolls to the bottom of the hill, but the energy at the bottom isn't necessarily zero. We could dig a hole and let it roll down farther, with its energy going negative. Only changes matter. Now it turns out that, once one accepts the implications of E=mc², one ''could'' assign an absolute potential energy to something&mdash;its mass times c², and changes in potential energy would work out correctly because of the mass changes. But that isn't necessary, and, in any case, it would require accepting E=mc² and would therefore be getting ahead of the story.<br />
<br />
<br />
With those preliminaries out of the way, it is possible to give a concise explanation of what the equation means:<br />
<br />
::'''Potential energy has mass.'''<br />
<br />
That is, it weighs something. Whenever anything has potential energy of any kind in it, improbable as this may sound, it weighs more. The proportionality constant is 1/c<sup>2</sup>, or 1.11 x 10<sup>−17</sup> kilograms per joule. A fresh battery weighs more than a spent one, a wound-up alarm clock weighs more than a run-down one, etc.<br />
<br />
Now that's way too small to measure for anything other than nuclear reactions, which is why it escaped everyone's notice for so long. But it has been measured and experimentally verified for nuclear transformations all across the periodic table.<br />
<br />
:There's an interesting parallel with heat. Before the rise of thermodynamics, it was believed that heat was a "substance". That substance was called "caloric". When heat travels from one body to another, what was really happening was presumed to be a transfer of caloric. Much effort was put into measuring the mass of this mysterious "substance". It was always found to be zero, and we now know that what is actually being transferred is thermal energy. So it is not unheard-of to assign mass to intangible properties.<br />
<br />
The nonzero mass of potential energy, and the equation E=mc², were determined on theoretical grounds, before any experimental observations were made. The logic of this follows from these assumptions:<br />
<br />
#Galilean and Newtonian mechanics.<br />
#Galilean relativity, that is, the notion that there is no absolute frame of reference.<br />
#Conservation of energy.<br />
#Conservation of momentum. (So far this is just classical physics.)<br />
#The universality of the speed of light. (That is, special relativity.)<br />
<br />
Keep in mind that, under special relativity, it's not just space and time that need to be redefined. The definitions of momentum and energy need to change also. This is necessary so that the '''conservation of energy and of momentum will be absolutely precise in all circumstances.'''<br />
<br />
Under classical Newtonian mechanics, the momentum and kinetic energy of a moving mass are<br />
:<math>p = mv\,</math><br />
and<br />
:<math>E = \frac{1}{2}mv^2\,</math><br />
respectively. But under special relativity they are<br />
:<math>p = \frac{mv}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}\,</math><br />
and<br />
:<math>E = mc^2\left(\frac{1}{1 - v^2/c^2} - 1\right)\,</math><br />
One can verify that, in the non-relativistic limit, the relativistic values converge to the classical ones.<br />
<br />
It is this requirement, and some "gedanken experiments" involving conversion between potential and kinetic energy, that lead to E=mc².<ref name="wvarticles"/> These experiments involve some kind of object that isn't moving (though there might be internal motion that doesn't figure in the experiment) and therefore has no kinetic energy and only potential energy, turning into some things that have kinetic energy. The requirements of strict conservation of total momentum and total energy prove the equation.<br />
<br />
Einstein's famous derivation<ref name="einstein1905b">[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?" Albert Einstein, Sept 1905]</ref> involved light instead of tangible objects, but the result is the same.<br />
<br />
==History of Experimental Verification==<br />
Because the change in mass arising from a given release of energy is so small (<math>1/c^2</math>, which 1.11 x 10<sup>−17</sup> kilograms per joule), it is essentially impossible to check this equation for normal processes. For example, a flashlight battery loses about 1 picogram of mass when it discharges, and the resultant atoms from the detonation of 1 kilogram of TNT weigh 47 nanograms less than the TNT. Even if all the particles of smoke and gas could be collected reliably, the difference couldn't be detected.<br />
<br />
Measuring the effect requires process that release vastly more energy than ordinary chemical processes. The discovery of Radium and Polonium around 1898 gave a tantalizing hint that there were processes that released far more energy than chemical processes could account for. These elements continuously released measurable heat, and also glowed in the dark.<br />
<br />
Einstein touched on this possibility in his original 1905 paper.<ref name=einstein1905b/><br />
{{cquote|''It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully put to the test.''}}It would take more than a decade to develop an understanding of the nuclear process involved. The first thing that was required was accurate knowledge of atomic weights.<br />
<br />
Atomic weights of the various elements were first measured, with accuracy of a few decimal places, by J. J. Berzelius in the late 1820s. This required extremely painstaking (for the time) measurements. The figures were refined to even more accuracy by J. A. R. Newlands in the 1860s. The values were accurate enough to clearly show the rather interesting property that the atomic weights were nearly integers, but not exactly so. The reason for this would turn out to be partly because of different isotopes (discovered by Frederick Soddy in 1913) and partly because of E=mc<sup>2</sup>.<br />
<br />
In 1907 Rutherford determined that the "alpha" radiation from Radium was Helium. In 1911 he formulated the theory of the nucleus. In 1919 he demonstrated that nuclear transmutations could take place, such as<br />
<br />
::<math>{}_7^{14}\mathrm{N}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}\,\rightarrow\, {}_8^{17}\mathrm{O}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}</math><br />
<br />
The discovery of Radon, and much further investigation, revealed that the behavior of Radium was<br />
<br />
::<math>{}_{88}^{226}\mathrm{Ra}\,\rightarrow\, {}_{86}^{222}\mathrm{Rn}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math><br />
and<br />
::<math>{}_{86}^{222}\mathrm{Rn}\,\rightarrow\, {}_{84}^{218}\mathrm{Po}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math><br />
<br />
Accurate ways of measuring speed of a charged particle, by deflecting it in a magnetic field, had been developed by then, so that, by very painstaking observation and measurement, it was determined that the first alpha particle (Helium nucleus) had an energy of 4.78 MeV and the second an energy of 5.49 Mev. This confirmed E=mc<sup>2</sup> up to the accuracy of the measurements. The equation, along with knowledge of isotope mixes, now explained why the atomic weights appearing in the periodic table were nearly integers, but not exactly so.<br />
<br />
Around 1925, the development of the mass spectrograph, by Francis Aston, made it possible to measure atomic weights to extreme precision.<br />
<br />
The 1932 Cockcroft-Walton experiment, described in more detail below, started to make the equation famous by confirming it, with reasonable accuracy, for an artificially induced nuclear reaction. (Confirming E=mc<sup>2</sup> was not a goal of the experiment; it was an incidental consequence. The equation had already been known and understood for many years.)<br />
<br />
In the decades since, nuclear transmutations have been performed, in particle accelerators, all over the periodic table, observing in detail the properties of various isotopes. These have confirmed E=mc<sup>2</sup> with great precision. See [[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]].<br />
<br />
==The Rainville test==<br />
Perhaps the most precise direct empirical verification of E=mc<sup>2</sup> was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville ''et. al.''<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref> The article states that &quot;Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−&Delta;mc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10<sup>−7</sup>, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described.&quot;<br />
<br />
==The Cockcroft-Walton experiment==<br />
This experiment is not one of the ones usually cited as validating E=mc². That was not its goal. The generally accepted important tests of this equation are the measurements of alpha decay energies, described above.<br />
<br />
In 1932 English physicist John Cockcroft and Irish physicist Ernest Walton performed the first artificial nuclear transmutation of nuclei, for which they were awarded the 1951 [[Nobel Prize]] in physics.<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf John D. Cockroft ''Experiments on the interaction of high-speed nucleons with atomic nuclei''], Nobel Lecture, Dec 11, 1951</ref> The award was for ''&quot;their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles.&quot;''<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/# Nobel Prize Organization]</ref> <br />
<br />
Verifying E=mc² was not the goal of the experiment, and the Nobel prize was awarded for the transmutation itself, not any verification of the equation. This experiment could not possibly have proved any general truth to the equation. But data from this experiment was consistent with the equation for the particular transmutation involved.<br />
<br />
They bombarded [[Lithium]] atoms with [[protons]] having a [[kinetic energy]] less than 1 [[Electron-Volts|MeV]]. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[alpha particle]]s, for which the [[kinetic energy]] was measured as 17.3 MeV<br />
<br />
:::::<math>{}_3^7\mathrm{Li}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}\,\rightarrow\,2\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math><br />
<br />
The mass of the particles on the left hand side is 8.0263 [[atomic mass units|amu]], the mass on the right hand side ''only'' 8.0077 amu.<ref>Gerard Piel ''The age of science: what scientists learned in the 20th century'', Basic Books, 2001, p. 144-145</ref> The difference between this masses is .00186 amu, which results in the following back-of-an-envelope calculation:<br />
<br />
::::<math>0.00186\,\mathrm{amu} \cdot c^2 = 0.0186 \cdot 1.66 \cdot 10^{-27}\,\mathrm{kg}\cdot\left(3\cdot10^8\,\mathrm{\frac{m}{s}}\right)^2</math><br />
::::<math>\approx\,2.79\cdot 10^{-12} \,\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}</math><br />
::::<math>\approx \,17.3\,\mathrm{MeV}</math><br />
<br />
Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:<br />
<br />
==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==<br />
<br />
For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc&sup2;. (The equation applies to '''all''' interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc&sup2; applies only to nuclear interactions.)<br />
<br />
The [[Theory of Relativity]] played no role in this work, but proponents later tried to retrofit the theory to the data in order to explain the explain the observed mass changes.<ref>Actually, the formula E=mc<sup>2</sup> was published in 1905, and has not changed since then. Fission of Uranium was discovered in 1938. It is not possible that the equation was retrofitted to explain this discovery.</ref> Here is the most famous example of the mass change.<br />
<br />
Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by [[Otto Hahn]] and [[Fritz Strassman]], and analyzed by [[Lise Meitner]], in 1938.<br />
<br />
There are a great number of decay paths of [[Uranium]] fission that figured in this experiment. The result element that most caught their attention was [[Barium]], because it was chemically related to the Radium that they were expecting. One of the fission paths may have been this:<br />
<br />
:<sup>235</sup>U &rarr; <sup>140</sup>Xe + <sup>91</sup>Sr + 4n<br />
<br />
(The [[Xenon]] decayed within about a minute to <sup>140</sup>Ba. They were searching for the chemical signature of Barium.)<br />
<br />
The masses of the particles are:<br />
<br />
{| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; border=&quot;1&quot; cellpadding=&quot;8&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; <br />
! Substance<br />
! <sup>235</sup>U<br />
! <sup>140</sup>Xe<br />
! <sup>91</sup>Sr<br />
! 4 neutrons<br />
|-<br />
| Number of protons<br />
| 92<br />
| 54<br />
| 38<br />
| 0<br />
|-<br />
| Number of neutrons<br />
| 235<br />
| 140<br />
| 91<br />
| 4<br />
|-<br />
| Number of electrons<br />
| 92<br />
| 54<br />
| 38<br />
| 0<br />
|-<br />
| Mass<br />
| 235.04393<br />
| 139.92164<br />
| 90.910203<br />
| 4.03466<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The mass of the Uranium atom is 235.04393, and the sum of the masses of the products is 234.866503. The difference is .177427 amu, or, using the E=mc&sup2; equation, 165 million electron volts. (The generally accepted value for the total energy released by Uranium fission, including secondary decays, is about 200 million electron volts.)<br />
<br />
The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate &quot;mass defect&quot; quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc&sup2; equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.<br />
<br />
==A Topical Example: Speed of Extremely Energetic Neutrinos==<br />
Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. In 2011 there were [http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos?newsfeed=true reports] that high-energy neutrinos had been observed traveling at a speed faster than the speed of light in an experiment at the Gran Sasso laboratory in Italy. Specifically, they seemed to have arrived at the detector 60 nanoseconds faster than light would have. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel ''at'' the speed of light. <br />
<br />
The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10<sup>−36</sup>kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc<sup>2</sup>. If we don't accept that, we have to do the calculations under classical physics, using SI (meter/kilogram/second) units.) The neutrinos were accelerated to an energy of about 17GeV, or .27x10<sup>−8</sup>Joules. If one did not accept relativity and had to use classical physics and the classical formula <math>\mathrm{E} = \frac{1}{2}mv^2</math>, one would get v=110x10<sup>12</sup> meters per second. This is about 370,000 times the speed of light, something that scientists would certainly have noticed. In fact, with special relativity, the speed is just under the speed of light, such that the neutrinos should be received at the detector about .26x10<sup>−24</sup> seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is far too small to measure&mdash;15 orders of magnitude smaller than the resolution of the GPS signals in the experiment.<br />
<br />
Later [http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/02/official-word-superluminal-neutrinos-leaves-warp-drive-fans-shred-hope%E2%80%94barely?ref=hp reports] started to resolve the mystery, and it is now accepted that the neutrinos behaved properly. But a BBC reporter made the incorrect statement that [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682 the neutrinos travelled at precisely light speed]. This was a simple misstatement, by .26 yoctoseconds.<br />
<br />
The issue was discussed at length at Conservapedia.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#Faster_than_light_neutrinos</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#The_final_nail_in_the_coffin_of_relativity.3F</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#Another_Blow_to_Relativity</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/109#Neutrinos_now_obey_speed_limit</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/111#Neutrinos</ref><br />
<br />
==Deducing the Equation From Empirical Observation==<br />
<br />
While the equation was historically developed on theoretical grounds as an inevitable consequence of special relativity, it is possible to deduce it purely from empirical observation.<br />
<br />
So, for the purposes of this section, imagine that one is in the era of "classical physics"; prior to 1900 or so. Relativity has not been invented, but, inexplicably, nuclear physics has. Imagine that the phenomena of radioactivity and nuclear fission have been observed, without any knowledge of relativity.<br />
<br />
A well-accepted physical law of classical physics was the law of conservation of mass. This was not easy to deduce. It required careful analysis of such phenomena as combustion, in the 1700s, to eliminate the various confounding sub-phenomena that made the law difficult to see. But, by 1900, the law was well established:<br />
<br />
:::*'''In all interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''<br />
<br />
For example, the mass of a TNT molecule is 227.1311 Daltons, or 227.1311 g/mol, which is, for all practical purposes, the same as the mass of its constituent Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen atoms. It is essentially impossible to measure the difference. The principle of conservation of mass is upheld.<br />
<br />
But when nuclear phenomena are discovered, we notice something different. The masses of the result particles after an event (e.g. alpha decay, nuclear fission, or artificial transmutation) is measurably less than the masses of the original particle(s). With the invention of the mass spectrometer around 1920, it became possible to measure atomic weights of various isotopes with great precision.<br />
<br />
Radium-226 decays into Radon-222 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 4.78 MeV.<br />
<br />
1&nbsp;kg of Radium-226 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{226.0254}</math> atoms. (The numerator is [[Avogadro's number]], and the denominator is the atomic weight of Radium-226.) This is 2.6643647 * 10<sup>24</sup> atoms.<br />
<br />
That number of Radon-222 atoms has mass .98226836&nbsp;kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01770863&nbsp;kg.<br />
The mass lost is .00002301&nbsp;kg.<br />
<br />
Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 4.78 MeV, or 4.78 * .1602 * 10<sup>−18</sup> Joules. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1&nbsp;kg of radium is 2.04 * 10<sup>12</sup> Joules.<br />
<br />
<br />
Also, Radon-222 decays into Polonium-218 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 5.49 MeV.<br />
<br />
1&nbsp;kg of Radon-222 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{222.0176}</math> atoms. This is 2.7124611 * 10<sup>24</sup> atoms.<br />
<br />
That number of Polonium-218 atoms has mass .98194467&nbsp;kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01802830&nbsp;kg.<br />
<br />
The mass lost is .00002703&nbsp;kg.<br />
<br />
Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 5.49 MeV. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1&nbsp;kg of polonium is 2.39 * 10<sup>12</sup> Joules.<br />
<br />
It looks as thought we have to rewrite the law of conservation of mass:<br />
<br />
:::*'''In all "ordinary" interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''<br />
:::*'''In nuclear interactions, there is a small but measurable loss of mass.'''<br />
<br />
:By the way, we can clearly see that atomic weights of pure isotopes are not integers, and that it has something to do with the energy released by nuclear disintegration. In retrospect, the formula E=mc&sup2; explains the non-integer character of atomic weights.<br />
<br />
Making special cases like this is unsatisfactory, of course.<br />
<br />
We do this for a few other interactions, including the explosion of TNT. This would include the Lithium-plus-Hydrogen and Uranium fission phenomena described above. We won't bother with the details. As observational scientists, we look for patterns in the behavior of nature. We make a table:<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" <br />
! interaction<br />
! energy released per kg, Joules<br />
! mass lost per kg of original substance, kg<br />
|-<br />
| explosion of TNT<br />
| 4.184 * 10<sup>6</sup><br />
| seems to be zero<br />
|-<br />
| alpha decay of Ra-226<br />
| 2.04 * 10<sup>12</sup><br />
| .00002301&nbsp;kg<br />
|-<br />
| alpha decay of Rn-222<br />
| 2.39 * 10<sup>12</sup><br />
| .00002703&nbsp;kg<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
We plot these, and a few others, not shown, on graph paper, and find to our amazement that the relationship is linear.<br />
<br />
For Ra, m/E = .112794118 E-16<br />
For Po, m/E = .113096234 E-16<br />
<br />
If this is linear, the mass defect for TNT would have been .47 * 10<sup>−10</sup>. We couldn't possibly have measured this.<br />
<br />
So we can rewrite the rule for conservation of mass in a more satisfactory way:<br />
<br />
:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to about .113 * 10<sup>-16</sup> kg per Joule of energy released.'''<br />
<br />
What we thought was exact conservation is just very nearly exact, and we hadn't been able to measure it before.<br />
<br />
But maybe there's more. This constant has dimensions of kilograms per Joule. From high-school physics, we know that that is seconds squared divided by meters squared. That is, it is the reciprocal of the square of a velocity. We calculate that velocity. It is about 2.97 * 10<sup>8</sup> meters per second. Very close to the speed of light! Very interesting! (The calculations above were not extremely precise. The formula has been verified with great precision, but not here.)<br />
<br />
We don't understand why (that will have to wait for the invention of relativity), but we can formulate a hypothesis:<br />
<br />
:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to <math>\frac{1}{c^2}</math> times the amount of energy released.'''<br />
<br />
We don't have to give the units any more, since everything is now dimensionally correct.<br />
<br />
::There is a very interesting analogy with the discovery of [[Maxwell's Equations]]. Maxwell found an interesting relationship involving the fundamental constants <math>\epsilon\,</math> and <math>\mu\,</math> appearing in his equations. Specifically, <math>\epsilon\mu\,</math> has the dimensions of seconds squared divided by meters squared, and that:<br />
<br />
:::::<math>\frac{1}{\epsilon\mu} = c^2</math><br />
<br />
::where "c" was the known velocity of light. He also showed that his equations predict electromagnetic waves, propagating at that speed.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Attempts to prove E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]]<br />
*[[E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /><br />
[[Category:Relativity]]<br />
[[Category:Laws of Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Physics]]</div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=1448027E=mc²2018-09-14T16:51:44Z<p>SamHB: /* The Cockcroft-Walton experiment, not to be taken as a verification or "proof" */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''E=mc&sup2;''' asserts that the energy ('''E''') in an unmoving particle is equal to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c&sup2;''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that particle.<ref>"Energy and mass are linked in the most famous relationship in physics: E = mc&sup2;. (The energy content of a body is equal to the mass of the body times the speed of light squared.)" [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/einstein-genius-among-geniuses.html Einstein: Genius Among Geniuses] - PBS's NOVA</ref> The complete form, when applied to moving objects, is [[E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2|E&sup2;=(mc&sup2;)&sup2;+(pc)&sup2;]], where '''p''' represents momentum,<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnMIhxWRGNw</ref> It is a statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[energy]]. In fact, no [[theory]] has successfully unified the [[law]]s governing [[mass]] (''i.e.'', [[gravity]]) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', [[electromagnetism]]), and numerous attempts to derive '''E=mc&sup2;''' from first principles have failed.<ref name="wvarticles">Five lectures at Wikiversity. The 4th one derives the formula, using the assumptions in the "What the Equation Means" section.<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/space,_time,_and_the_Lorentz_transform Lecture 1]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/momentum Lecture 2]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/energy Lecture 3]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/E_%3D_mc%C2%B2 Lecture 4]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/spacetime_diagrams_and_vectors Lecture 5]</ref> [[Politics|Political]] pressure, however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in [[science]] to even question the validity of this nonsensical [[equation]]. ''Simply put, E=mc&sup2; is [[liberal claptrap]]''.<br />
<br />
The formula asserts that the mass of an object, at constant energy, magically varies precisely in inverse proportion to the square of a change in the speed of light over time,<ref>http://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html</ref> which violates [[conservation of mass]] and disagrees with commonsense.<ref>The formula asserts that the mass of an object has energy associated with it, even when it is not moving (p=0). The formula asserts a relationship between the rest mass of an object, its energy and the speed of light. According to the formula, the apparent mass of an object depends on its energy and so [[conservation of mass]] is not satisfied. Instead, relativity proposes that the total energy of a [[closed system]] is conserved, when we &quot;convert&quot; the masses into energies using this formula.</ref><br />
<br />
Physicists have never been able to unify light with matter<ref>Quantum Electrodynamics describes how matter interacts with matter, the standard model of particle physics describes how matter (fermions) interact with bosons (force carriers) for the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces. To date, no theory has been proven to unify gravity with electromagnetism.</ref> despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so.<ref>Much of 20th century physics has centered around the interactions between photons (light) and fermionic matter, and much more than a billion dollars has been spent on this. But that doesn't imply that they have been "unified".</ref> [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]] predicts that there is no unified theory of light and matter because they were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]].<br />
<br />
[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic [[energy]] of an object (such as an [[atom]]) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to the accepted view (as predicted by [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]) that the forces of nature have not been unified. Liberal scientists assert the formula E=mc&sup2; is not limited to nuclear reactions; it applies to chemical reactions and even to the energy stored in a compressed spring.<ref>http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99140.htm</ref><br />
<br />
The claim that '''E=mc&sup2;''' has never yielded anything of value and it has often been used as a redefinition of &quot;[[energy]]&quot; for pseudo-scientific purposes by non-scientific journals. Claims can be found not only on liberal, second-tier college websites but at those of [[Baylor]] and the [[MIT]] that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation and [[nuclear weapon]]s ([[nuclear fusion]] and [[nuclear fission]]) and about [[antimatter]].<ref>[http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/E=mcsquared/index.html John D. Norton ''Einstein for everyone - E=mc²''], Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Pittsburgh</ref><ref>[http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/releng.html Rod Nave ''HpyerPhysics - Relativistic Energy''], Georgia State University</ref><ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html Peter Tyson ''The Legacy of E=mc&sup2;''] October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''.</ref><br />
<br />
The [[Theory of Relativity]] has never been able to mathematically derive '''E=mc&sup2;''' from first principles,<ref name="wvarticles"/> and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H Eugene Hecht: ''How Einstein confirmed E<sub>0</sub>=mc&sup2;'', American Journal of Physics, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp. 591-600 (2011)]</ref> Nevertheless, Robert Dicke - one of the most accomplished American-born physicists and experimental physicists in history - found it unlikely that the equivalence was wrong.<ref>R. H. Dicke "The Theoretical Significance of Experimental Relativity", Gordon and Breach, 1964</ref><br />
<br />
It has been known for a long time that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by [[Henri Poincaré]] in 1904,<ref>[http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540 Herbert E. Ives ''Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation'', JOSA, Vol. 42, Issue 8, pp. 540-543 (1952)]</ref> but the equation '''E=mc&sup2;''' makes a claim far beyond that limited circumstance:<br />
<br />
{{cquote|The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).|||[[Herbert Ives]], 1952}}<br />
<!--In 1907, [[Max Planck]] proved in his fundamental paper that the formula ''E=mc&sup2;'' is not a general law and any system submitted to an external pressure will obey a different law: its mass will be proportional to its enthalpy ''H=E+PV'', that is, ''m=H/c&sup2;''<ref name="Capria">{{cite book |author=Marco M. Capria, Aubert Daigneaut et al. |title=Physics Before and After Einstein |publisher=IOS Press |year=2005 |chapter=2.Mechanics and Electromagnetism... |pages=43|isbn=1-58603-462-6 |url=http://www.dmi.unipg.it/~mamone/pubb/PBAE.pdf |quote=}}</ref>.--><br />
<br />
== Description for the layman ==<br />
<br />
The equation is extremely famous, and just as extremely misunderstood, in popular culture. Among the more outlandish claims are statements to the effect that "E=mc&sup2; holds the secret of the atomic bomb."<ref>Not so. The energy of the atomic bomb comes not from E=mc&sup2;, but from the tension between the electrostatic force and the strong nuclear force. E=mc&sup2; simply meant that the fission products from the [[Little Boy|Hiroshima]] bomb weighed 0.7 grams less than the original Uranium.</ref><br />
[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|<br />
*"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>]]<br />
The equation has acquired something of a "cult" status. In the USA, the popular ''[[Twilight Zone]]'' series featured '''E=mc&sup2;''' prominently, giving the equation greater currency with the public. The song ''[[Albert Einstein|Einstein]] A Go-Go'' by the band Landscape had a similar effect in the UK in the 1980s. The equation was the title of a single by ''Big Audio Dynamite'' in 1985, and an album by Mariah Carey in 2008. Some movies have been themed on this equation.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322120/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_2, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116160/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_1</ref> The equation, along with a picture of a mushroom cloud and a picture of [[Albert Einstein]], were featured on the front cover of an issue of ''Time'' magazine in 1946. All of this is disappointing when one considers how few people actually understand what the equation is saying.<br />
<br />
A number of science writers&mdash;both serious scientists and science popularizers&mdash;have at various times written their own explanation of the equation. Some of these are helpful; many are not. One of the better ones, though not without its share of nonsense, is a NOVA series by the [[Public Broadcasting Service]]<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/ancestors-einstein.html David Bodanis ''Ancestors of E=mc&sup2;''], Nov 10, 2005, NOVA</ref><br />
<br />
In 2005 The PBS NOVA series also asked 10 physicists to describe the equation in layman's terms.<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html Lexi Krock, David Levin (editors) ''E=mc&sup2; explained'', June, 2005. PBS ''NOVA'']</ref> Here is a sample of five of the statements:<br />
{{cquote|''It's something that doesn't happen in your kitchen or in everyday life.''|||[[Neil deGrasse Tyson]], Astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History}}{{cquote|''When an object emits light, say, a flashlight, it gets lighter.''|||Sheldon Glashow, Theoretical Physicist and Nobel Laureate, Boston University}}{{cquote|''Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.''|||Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University}}{{cquote|''You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.''|||Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University}}{{<br />
cquote|''It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.''|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}<br />
<br />
Of these, only the Sheldon Glashow quote makes a specific and meaningful statement about what the equation means.<br />
<br />
== What the Equation Means ==<br />
The equation is about energy, both kinetic energy and potential energy.<br />
<br />
Kinetic energy is actual visible energy, that is, energy of things that are in motion. It's the energy of a thrown baseball. Radiation (for example, light) also counts as kinetic energy&mdash;it's the motion of photons. Light carries energy, force, and momentum. The force carried by light is not as obvious as the force of a thrown baseball, but it is there. The force of sunlight has been proposed for long-term space travel. It is also the force that causes the [[Pioneer anomaly]] and the force that makes a comet's tail stream away from the Sun.<br />
<br />
Potential energy is the other kind&mdash;"hidden" energy. It can become kinetic energy, or vice-versa. A wound up spring, a charged battery, a stretched rubber band, a mixture of gasoline and air, an explosive, and a radioactive atom, all have potential energy. It's what is needed to make the principle of conservation of energy work. That is, when kinetic energy comes into existence, it's because potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. The wound-up spring of a clock has potential energy, that runs down over time, being converted into the kinetic energy of the ticking sound. A battery has potential energy that runs down when it provides electricity to make things move. Various chemical substances have characteristic amounts of potential energy, that may be converted to or from kinetic energy when chemical reactions occur. For example, Sodium and Chlorine have more potential energy than Sodium Chloride. Explosives have more potential energy than their constituent atoms. Radioactive atoms have more potential energy than their "daughter" atoms.<br />
<br />
The principle of ''conservation of energy'', universally accepted for well over 100 years, says<br />
<br />
::Total energy (kinetic + potential) is always conserved.<br />
<br />
Hundreds of years of research by chemists (and, before that, the alchemists) worked out the potential energies that are characteristic of various substances, and that the potential and kinetic energies are accurately converted from one to the other, leading to the principle of conservation of total energy.<br />
<br />
An interesting fact is that, normally, one considers only ''changes'' in potential energy; one doesn't need an absolute scale. A rock at the top of a hill has more potential energy than after it rolls to the bottom of the hill, but the energy at the bottom isn't necessarily zero. We could dig a hole and let it roll down farther, with its energy going negative. Only changes matter. Now it turns out that, once one accepts the implications of E=mc², one ''could'' assign an absolute potential energy to something&mdash;its mass times c², and changes in potential energy would work out correctly because of the mass changes. But that isn't necessary, and, in any case, it would require accepting E=mc² and would therefore be getting ahead of the story.<br />
<br />
<br />
With those preliminaries out of the way, it is possible to give a concise explanation of what the equation means:<br />
<br />
::'''Potential energy has mass.'''<br />
<br />
That is, it weighs something. Whenever anything has potential energy of any kind in it, improbable as this may sound, it weighs more. The proportionality constant is 1/c<sup>2</sup>, or 1.11 x 10<sup>−17</sup> kilograms per joule. A fresh battery weighs more than a spent one, a wound-up alarm clock weighs more than a run-down one, etc.<br />
<br />
Now that's way too small to measure for anything other than nuclear reactions, which is why it escaped everyone's notice for so long. But it has been measured and experimentally verified for nuclear transformations all across the periodic table.<br />
<br />
:There's an interesting parallel with heat. Before the rise of thermodynamics, it was believed that heat was a "substance". That substance was called "caloric". When heat travels from one body to another, what was really happening was presumed to be a transfer of caloric. Much effort was put into measuring the mass of this mysterious "substance". It was always found to be zero, and we now know that what is actually being transferred is thermal energy. So it is not unheard-of to assign mass to intangible properties.<br />
<br />
The nonzero mass of potential energy, and the equation E=mc², were determined on theoretical grounds, before any experimental observations were made. The logic of this follows from these assumptions:<br />
<br />
#Galilean and Newtonian mechanics.<br />
#Galilean relativity, that is, the notion that there is no absolute frame of reference.<br />
#Conservation of energy.<br />
#Conservation of momentum. (So far this is just classical physics.)<br />
#The universality of the speed of light. (That is, special relativity.)<br />
<br />
Keep in mind that, under special relativity, it's not just space and time that need to be redefined. The definitions of momentum and energy need to change also. This is necessary so that the '''conservation of energy and of momentum will be absolutely precise in all circumstances.'''<br />
<br />
Under classical Newtonian mechanics, the momentum and kinetic energy of a moving mass are<br />
:<math>p = mv\,</math><br />
and<br />
:<math>E = \frac{1}{2}mv^2\,</math><br />
respectively. But under special relativity they are<br />
:<math>p = \frac{mv}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}\,</math><br />
and<br />
:<math>E = mc^2\left(\frac{1}{1 - v^2/c^2} - 1\right)\,</math><br />
One can verify that, in the non-relativistic limit, the relativistic values converge to the classical ones.<br />
<br />
It is this requirement, and some "gedanken experiments" involving conversion between potential and kinetic energy, that lead to E=mc².<ref name="wvarticles"/> These experiments involve some kind of object that isn't moving (though there might be internal motion that doesn't figure in the experiment) and therefore has no kinetic energy and only potential energy, turning into some things that have kinetic energy. The requirements of strict conservation of total momentum and total energy prove the equation.<br />
<br />
Einstein's famous derivation<ref name="einstein1905b">[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?" Albert Einstein, Sept 1905]</ref> involved light instead of tangible objects, but the result is the same.<br />
<br />
==History of Experimental Verification==<br />
Because the change in mass arising from a given release of energy is so small (<math>1/c^2</math>, which 1.11 x 10<sup>−17</sup> kilograms per joule), it is essentially impossible to check this equation for normal processes. For example, a flashlight battery loses about 1 picogram of mass when it discharges, and the resultant atoms from the detonation of 1 kilogram of TNT weigh 47 nanograms less than the TNT. Even if all the particles of smoke and gas could be collected reliably, the difference couldn't be detected.<br />
<br />
Measuring the effect requires process that release vastly more energy than ordinary chemical processes. The discovery of Radium and Polonium around 1898 gave a tantalizing hint that there were processes that released far more energy than chemical processes could account for. These elements continuously released measurable heat, and also glowed in the dark.<br />
<br />
Einstein touched on this possibility in his original 1905 paper.<ref name=einstein1905b/><br />
{{cquote|''It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully put to the test.''}}It would take more than a decade to develop an understanding of the nuclear process involved. The first thing that was required was accurate knowledge of atomic weights.<br />
<br />
Atomic weights of the various elements were first measured, with accuracy of a few decimal places, by J. J. Berzelius in the late 1820s. This required extremely painstaking (for the time) measurements. The figures were refined to even more accuracy by J. A. R. Newlands in the 1860s. The values were accurate enough to clearly show the rather interesting property that the atomic weights were nearly integers, but not exactly so. The reason for this would turn out to be partly because of different isotopes (discovered by Frederick Soddy in 1913) and partly because of E=mc<sup>2</sup>.<br />
<br />
In 1907 Rutherford determined that the "alpha" radiation from Radium was Helium. In 1911 he formulated the theory of the nucleus. In 1919 he demonstrated that nuclear transmutations could take place, such as<br />
<br />
::<math>{}_7^{14}\mathrm{N}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}\,\rightarrow\, {}_8^{17}\mathrm{O}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}</math><br />
<br />
The discovery of Radon, and much further investigation, revealed that the behavior of Radium was<br />
<br />
::<math>{}_{88}^{226}\mathrm{Ra}\,\rightarrow\, {}_{86}^{222}\mathrm{Rn}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math><br />
and<br />
::<math>{}_{86}^{222}\mathrm{Rn}\,\rightarrow\, {}_{84}^{218}\mathrm{Po}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math><br />
<br />
Accurate ways of measuring speed of a charged particle, by deflecting it in a magnetic field, had been developed by then, so that, by very painstaking observation and measurement, it was determined that the first alpha particle (Helium nucleus) had an energy of 4.78 MeV and the second an energy of 5.49 Mev. This confirmed E=mc<sup>2</sup> up to the accuracy of the measurements. The equation, along with knowledge of isotope mixes, now explained why the atomic weights appearing in the periodic table were nearly integers, but not exactly so.<br />
<br />
Around 1925, the development of the mass spectrograph, by Francis Aston, made it possible to measure atomic weights to extreme precision.<br />
<br />
The 1932 Cockcroft-Walton experiment, described in more detail below, started to make the equation famous by confirming it, with reasonable accuracy, for an artificially induced nuclear reaction. (Confirming E=mc<sup>2</sup> was not a goal of the experiment; it was an incidental consequence. The equation had already been known and understood for many years.)<br />
<br />
In the decades since, nuclear transmutations have been performed, in particle accelerators, all over the periodic table, observing in detail the properties of various isotopes. These have confirmed E=mc<sup>2</sup> with great precision. See [[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]].<br />
<br />
==The Rainville test==<br />
Perhaps the most precise direct empirical verification of E=mc<sup>2</sup> was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville ''et. al.''<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref> The article states that &quot;Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−&Delta;mc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10<sup>−7</sup>, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described.&quot;<br />
<br />
==The Cockcroft-Walton experiment, not to be taken as a verification or "proof"==<br />
This experiment is not one of the ones usually cited as validating E=mc². That was not its goal. The generally accepted important tests of this equation are the measurements of alpha decay energies, described above.<br />
<br />
In 1932 English physicist John Cockcroft and Irish physicist Ernest Walton performed the first artificial nuclear transmutation of nuclei, for which they were awarded the 1951 [[Nobel Prize]] in physics.<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf John D. Cockroft ''Experiments on the interaction of high-speed nucleons with atomic nuclei''], Nobel Lecture, Dec 11, 1951</ref> The award was for ''&quot;their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles.&quot;''<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/# Nobel Prize Organization]</ref> <br />
<br />
Verifying E=mc² was not the goal of the experiment, and the Nobel prize was awarded for the transmutation itself, not any verification of the equation. This experiment could not possibly have proved any general truth to the equation. But data from this experiment was consistent with the equation for the particular transmutation involved.<br />
<br />
They bombarded [[Lithium]] atoms with [[protons]] having a [[kinetic energy]] less than 1 [[Electron-Volts|MeV]]. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[alpha particle]]s, for which the [[kinetic energy]] was measured as 17.3 MeV<br />
<br />
:::::<math>{}_3^7\mathrm{Li}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}\,\rightarrow\,2\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math><br />
<br />
The mass of the particles on the left hand side is 8.0263 [[atomic mass units|amu]], the mass on the right hand side ''only'' 8.0077 amu.<ref>Gerard Piel ''The age of science: what scientists learned in the 20th century'', Basic Books, 2001, p. 144-145</ref> The difference between this masses is .00186 amu, which results in the following back-of-an-envelope calculation:<br />
<br />
::::<math>0.00186\,\mathrm{amu} \cdot c^2 = 0.0186 \cdot 1.66 \cdot 10^{-27}\,\mathrm{kg}\cdot\left(3\cdot10^8\,\mathrm{\frac{m}{s}}\right)^2</math><br />
::::<math>\approx\,2.79\cdot 10^{-12} \,\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}</math><br />
::::<math>\approx \,17.3\,\mathrm{MeV}</math><br />
<br />
Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:<br />
<br />
==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==<br />
<br />
For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc&sup2;. (The equation applies to '''all''' interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc&sup2; applies only to nuclear interactions.)<br />
<br />
The [[Theory of Relativity]] played no role in this work, but proponents later tried to retrofit the theory to the data in order to explain the explain the observed mass changes.<ref>Actually, the formula E=mc<sup>2</sup> was published in 1905, and has not changed since then. Fission of Uranium was discovered in 1938. It is not possible that the equation was retrofitted to explain this discovery.</ref> Here is the most famous example of the mass change.<br />
<br />
Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by [[Otto Hahn]] and [[Fritz Strassman]], and analyzed by [[Lise Meitner]], in 1938.<br />
<br />
There are a great number of decay paths of [[Uranium]] fission that figured in this experiment. The result element that most caught their attention was [[Barium]], because it was chemically related to the Radium that they were expecting. One of the fission paths may have been this:<br />
<br />
:<sup>235</sup>U &rarr; <sup>140</sup>Xe + <sup>91</sup>Sr + 4n<br />
<br />
(The [[Xenon]] decayed within about a minute to <sup>140</sup>Ba. They were searching for the chemical signature of Barium.)<br />
<br />
The masses of the particles are:<br />
<br />
{| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; border=&quot;1&quot; cellpadding=&quot;8&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; <br />
! Substance<br />
! <sup>235</sup>U<br />
! <sup>140</sup>Xe<br />
! <sup>91</sup>Sr<br />
! 4 neutrons<br />
|-<br />
| Number of protons<br />
| 92<br />
| 54<br />
| 38<br />
| 0<br />
|-<br />
| Number of neutrons<br />
| 235<br />
| 140<br />
| 91<br />
| 4<br />
|-<br />
| Number of electrons<br />
| 92<br />
| 54<br />
| 38<br />
| 0<br />
|-<br />
| Mass<br />
| 235.04393<br />
| 139.92164<br />
| 90.910203<br />
| 4.03466<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The mass of the Uranium atom is 235.04393, and the sum of the masses of the products is 234.866503. The difference is .177427 amu, or, using the E=mc&sup2; equation, 165 million electron volts. (The generally accepted value for the total energy released by Uranium fission, including secondary decays, is about 200 million electron volts.)<br />
<br />
The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate &quot;mass defect&quot; quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc&sup2; equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.<br />
<br />
==A Topical Example: Speed of Extremely Energetic Neutrinos==<br />
Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. In 2011 there were [http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos?newsfeed=true reports] that high-energy neutrinos had been observed traveling at a speed faster than the speed of light in an experiment at the Gran Sasso laboratory in Italy. Specifically, they seemed to have arrived at the detector 60 nanoseconds faster than light would have. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel ''at'' the speed of light. <br />
<br />
The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10<sup>−36</sup>kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc<sup>2</sup>. If we don't accept that, we have to do the calculations under classical physics, using SI (meter/kilogram/second) units.) The neutrinos were accelerated to an energy of about 17GeV, or .27x10<sup>−8</sup>Joules. If one did not accept relativity and had to use classical physics and the classical formula <math>\mathrm{E} = \frac{1}{2}mv^2</math>, one would get v=110x10<sup>12</sup> meters per second. This is about 370,000 times the speed of light, something that scientists would certainly have noticed. In fact, with special relativity, the speed is just under the speed of light, such that the neutrinos should be received at the detector about .26x10<sup>−24</sup> seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is far too small to measure&mdash;15 orders of magnitude smaller than the resolution of the GPS signals in the experiment.<br />
<br />
Later [http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/02/official-word-superluminal-neutrinos-leaves-warp-drive-fans-shred-hope%E2%80%94barely?ref=hp reports] started to resolve the mystery, and it is now accepted that the neutrinos behaved properly. But a BBC reporter made the incorrect statement that [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682 the neutrinos travelled at precisely light speed]. This was a simple misstatement, by .26 yoctoseconds.<br />
<br />
The issue was discussed at length at Conservapedia.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#Faster_than_light_neutrinos</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#The_final_nail_in_the_coffin_of_relativity.3F</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#Another_Blow_to_Relativity</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/109#Neutrinos_now_obey_speed_limit</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/111#Neutrinos</ref><br />
<br />
==Deducing the Equation From Empirical Observation==<br />
<br />
While the equation was historically developed on theoretical grounds as an inevitable consequence of special relativity, it is possible to deduce it purely from empirical observation.<br />
<br />
So, for the purposes of this section, imagine that one is in the era of "classical physics"; prior to 1900 or so. Relativity has not been invented, but, inexplicably, nuclear physics has. Imagine that the phenomena of radioactivity and nuclear fission have been observed, without any knowledge of relativity.<br />
<br />
A well-accepted physical law of classical physics was the law of conservation of mass. This was not easy to deduce. It required careful analysis of such phenomena as combustion, in the 1700s, to eliminate the various confounding sub-phenomena that made the law difficult to see. But, by 1900, the law was well established:<br />
<br />
:::*'''In all interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''<br />
<br />
For example, the mass of a TNT molecule is 227.1311 Daltons, or 227.1311 g/mol, which is, for all practical purposes, the same as the mass of its constituent Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen atoms. It is essentially impossible to measure the difference. The principle of conservation of mass is upheld.<br />
<br />
But when nuclear phenomena are discovered, we notice something different. The masses of the result particles after an event (e.g. alpha decay, nuclear fission, or artificial transmutation) is measurably less than the masses of the original particle(s). With the invention of the mass spectrometer around 1920, it became possible to measure atomic weights of various isotopes with great precision.<br />
<br />
Radium-226 decays into Radon-222 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 4.78 MeV.<br />
<br />
1&nbsp;kg of Radium-226 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{226.0254}</math> atoms. (The numerator is [[Avogadro's number]], and the denominator is the atomic weight of Radium-226.) This is 2.6643647 * 10<sup>24</sup> atoms.<br />
<br />
That number of Radon-222 atoms has mass .98226836&nbsp;kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01770863&nbsp;kg.<br />
The mass lost is .00002301&nbsp;kg.<br />
<br />
Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 4.78 MeV, or 4.78 * .1602 * 10<sup>−18</sup> Joules. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1&nbsp;kg of radium is 2.04 * 10<sup>12</sup> Joules.<br />
<br />
<br />
Also, Radon-222 decays into Polonium-218 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 5.49 MeV.<br />
<br />
1&nbsp;kg of Radon-222 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{222.0176}</math> atoms. This is 2.7124611 * 10<sup>24</sup> atoms.<br />
<br />
That number of Polonium-218 atoms has mass .98194467&nbsp;kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01802830&nbsp;kg.<br />
<br />
The mass lost is .00002703&nbsp;kg.<br />
<br />
Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 5.49 MeV. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1&nbsp;kg of polonium is 2.39 * 10<sup>12</sup> Joules.<br />
<br />
It looks as thought we have to rewrite the law of conservation of mass:<br />
<br />
:::*'''In all "ordinary" interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''<br />
:::*'''In nuclear interactions, there is a small but measurable loss of mass.'''<br />
<br />
:By the way, we can clearly see that atomic weights of pure isotopes are not integers, and that it has something to do with the energy released by nuclear disintegration. In retrospect, the formula E=mc&sup2; explains the non-integer character of atomic weights.<br />
<br />
Making special cases like this is unsatisfactory, of course.<br />
<br />
We do this for a few other interactions, including the explosion of TNT. This would include the Lithium-plus-Hydrogen and Uranium fission phenomena described above. We won't bother with the details. As observational scientists, we look for patterns in the behavior of nature. We make a table:<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" <br />
! interaction<br />
! energy released per kg, Joules<br />
! mass lost per kg of original substance, kg<br />
|-<br />
| explosion of TNT<br />
| 4.184 * 10<sup>6</sup><br />
| seems to be zero<br />
|-<br />
| alpha decay of Ra-226<br />
| 2.04 * 10<sup>12</sup><br />
| .00002301&nbsp;kg<br />
|-<br />
| alpha decay of Rn-222<br />
| 2.39 * 10<sup>12</sup><br />
| .00002703&nbsp;kg<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
We plot these, and a few others, not shown, on graph paper, and find to our amazement that the relationship is linear.<br />
<br />
For Ra, m/E = .112794118 E-16<br />
For Po, m/E = .113096234 E-16<br />
<br />
If this is linear, the mass defect for TNT would have been .47 * 10<sup>−10</sup>. We couldn't possibly have measured this.<br />
<br />
So we can rewrite the rule for conservation of mass in a more satisfactory way:<br />
<br />
:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to about .113 * 10<sup>-16</sup> kg per Joule of energy released.'''<br />
<br />
What we thought was exact conservation is just very nearly exact, and we hadn't been able to measure it before.<br />
<br />
But maybe there's more. This constant has dimensions of kilograms per Joule. From high-school physics, we know that that is seconds squared divided by meters squared. That is, it is the reciprocal of the square of a velocity. We calculate that velocity. It is about 2.97 * 10<sup>8</sup> meters per second. Very close to the speed of light! Very interesting! (The calculations above were not extremely precise. The formula has been verified with great precision, but not here.)<br />
<br />
We don't understand why (that will have to wait for the invention of relativity), but we can formulate a hypothesis:<br />
<br />
:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to <math>\frac{1}{c^2}</math> times the amount of energy released.'''<br />
<br />
We don't have to give the units any more, since everything is now dimensionally correct.<br />
<br />
::There is a very interesting analogy with the discovery of [[Maxwell's Equations]]. Maxwell found an interesting relationship involving the fundamental constants <math>\epsilon\,</math> and <math>\mu\,</math> appearing in his equations. Specifically, <math>\epsilon\mu\,</math> has the dimensions of seconds squared divided by meters squared, and that:<br />
<br />
:::::<math>\frac{1}{\epsilon\mu} = c^2</math><br />
<br />
::where "c" was the known velocity of light. He also showed that his equations predict electromagnetic waves, propagating at that speed.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Attempts to prove E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]]<br />
*[[E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /><br />
[[Category:Relativity]]<br />
[[Category:Laws of Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Physics]]</div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=1448025E=mc²2018-09-14T16:49:00Z<p>SamHB: /* History of Experimental Verification */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''E=mc&sup2;''' asserts that the energy ('''E''') in an unmoving particle is equal to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c&sup2;''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that particle.<ref>"Energy and mass are linked in the most famous relationship in physics: E = mc&sup2;. (The energy content of a body is equal to the mass of the body times the speed of light squared.)" [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/einstein-genius-among-geniuses.html Einstein: Genius Among Geniuses] - PBS's NOVA</ref> The complete form, when applied to moving objects, is [[E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2|E&sup2;=(mc&sup2;)&sup2;+(pc)&sup2;]], where '''p''' represents momentum,<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnMIhxWRGNw</ref> It is a statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[energy]]. In fact, no [[theory]] has successfully unified the [[law]]s governing [[mass]] (''i.e.'', [[gravity]]) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', [[electromagnetism]]), and numerous attempts to derive '''E=mc&sup2;''' from first principles have failed.<ref name="wvarticles">Five lectures at Wikiversity. The 4th one derives the formula, using the assumptions in the "What the Equation Means" section.<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/space,_time,_and_the_Lorentz_transform Lecture 1]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/momentum Lecture 2]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/energy Lecture 3]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/E_%3D_mc%C2%B2 Lecture 4]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/spacetime_diagrams_and_vectors Lecture 5]</ref> [[Politics|Political]] pressure, however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in [[science]] to even question the validity of this nonsensical [[equation]]. ''Simply put, E=mc&sup2; is [[liberal claptrap]]''.<br />
<br />
The formula asserts that the mass of an object, at constant energy, magically varies precisely in inverse proportion to the square of a change in the speed of light over time,<ref>http://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html</ref> which violates [[conservation of mass]] and disagrees with commonsense.<ref>The formula asserts that the mass of an object has energy associated with it, even when it is not moving (p=0). The formula asserts a relationship between the rest mass of an object, its energy and the speed of light. According to the formula, the apparent mass of an object depends on its energy and so [[conservation of mass]] is not satisfied. Instead, relativity proposes that the total energy of a [[closed system]] is conserved, when we &quot;convert&quot; the masses into energies using this formula.</ref><br />
<br />
Physicists have never been able to unify light with matter<ref>Quantum Electrodynamics describes how matter interacts with matter, the standard model of particle physics describes how matter (fermions) interact with bosons (force carriers) for the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces. To date, no theory has been proven to unify gravity with electromagnetism.</ref> despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so.<ref>Much of 20th century physics has centered around the interactions between photons (light) and fermionic matter, and much more than a billion dollars has been spent on this. But that doesn't imply that they have been "unified".</ref> [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]] predicts that there is no unified theory of light and matter because they were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]].<br />
<br />
[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic [[energy]] of an object (such as an [[atom]]) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to the accepted view (as predicted by [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]) that the forces of nature have not been unified. Liberal scientists assert the formula E=mc&sup2; is not limited to nuclear reactions; it applies to chemical reactions and even to the energy stored in a compressed spring.<ref>http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99140.htm</ref><br />
<br />
The claim that '''E=mc&sup2;''' has never yielded anything of value and it has often been used as a redefinition of &quot;[[energy]]&quot; for pseudo-scientific purposes by non-scientific journals. Claims can be found not only on liberal, second-tier college websites but at those of [[Baylor]] and the [[MIT]] that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation and [[nuclear weapon]]s ([[nuclear fusion]] and [[nuclear fission]]) and about [[antimatter]].<ref>[http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/E=mcsquared/index.html John D. Norton ''Einstein for everyone - E=mc²''], Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Pittsburgh</ref><ref>[http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/releng.html Rod Nave ''HpyerPhysics - Relativistic Energy''], Georgia State University</ref><ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html Peter Tyson ''The Legacy of E=mc&sup2;''] October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''.</ref><br />
<br />
The [[Theory of Relativity]] has never been able to mathematically derive '''E=mc&sup2;''' from first principles,<ref name="wvarticles"/> and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H Eugene Hecht: ''How Einstein confirmed E<sub>0</sub>=mc&sup2;'', American Journal of Physics, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp. 591-600 (2011)]</ref> Nevertheless, Robert Dicke - one of the most accomplished American-born physicists and experimental physicists in history - found it unlikely that the equivalence was wrong.<ref>R. H. Dicke "The Theoretical Significance of Experimental Relativity", Gordon and Breach, 1964</ref><br />
<br />
It has been known for a long time that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by [[Henri Poincaré]] in 1904,<ref>[http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540 Herbert E. Ives ''Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation'', JOSA, Vol. 42, Issue 8, pp. 540-543 (1952)]</ref> but the equation '''E=mc&sup2;''' makes a claim far beyond that limited circumstance:<br />
<br />
{{cquote|The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).|||[[Herbert Ives]], 1952}}<br />
<!--In 1907, [[Max Planck]] proved in his fundamental paper that the formula ''E=mc&sup2;'' is not a general law and any system submitted to an external pressure will obey a different law: its mass will be proportional to its enthalpy ''H=E+PV'', that is, ''m=H/c&sup2;''<ref name="Capria">{{cite book |author=Marco M. Capria, Aubert Daigneaut et al. |title=Physics Before and After Einstein |publisher=IOS Press |year=2005 |chapter=2.Mechanics and Electromagnetism... |pages=43|isbn=1-58603-462-6 |url=http://www.dmi.unipg.it/~mamone/pubb/PBAE.pdf |quote=}}</ref>.--><br />
<br />
== Description for the layman ==<br />
<br />
The equation is extremely famous, and just as extremely misunderstood, in popular culture. Among the more outlandish claims are statements to the effect that "E=mc&sup2; holds the secret of the atomic bomb."<ref>Not so. The energy of the atomic bomb comes not from E=mc&sup2;, but from the tension between the electrostatic force and the strong nuclear force. E=mc&sup2; simply meant that the fission products from the [[Little Boy|Hiroshima]] bomb weighed 0.7 grams less than the original Uranium.</ref><br />
[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|<br />
*"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>]]<br />
The equation has acquired something of a "cult" status. In the USA, the popular ''[[Twilight Zone]]'' series featured '''E=mc&sup2;''' prominently, giving the equation greater currency with the public. The song ''[[Albert Einstein|Einstein]] A Go-Go'' by the band Landscape had a similar effect in the UK in the 1980s. The equation was the title of a single by ''Big Audio Dynamite'' in 1985, and an album by Mariah Carey in 2008. Some movies have been themed on this equation.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322120/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_2, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116160/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_1</ref> The equation, along with a picture of a mushroom cloud and a picture of [[Albert Einstein]], were featured on the front cover of an issue of ''Time'' magazine in 1946. All of this is disappointing when one considers how few people actually understand what the equation is saying.<br />
<br />
A number of science writers&mdash;both serious scientists and science popularizers&mdash;have at various times written their own explanation of the equation. Some of these are helpful; many are not. One of the better ones, though not without its share of nonsense, is a NOVA series by the [[Public Broadcasting Service]]<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/ancestors-einstein.html David Bodanis ''Ancestors of E=mc&sup2;''], Nov 10, 2005, NOVA</ref><br />
<br />
In 2005 The PBS NOVA series also asked 10 physicists to describe the equation in layman's terms.<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html Lexi Krock, David Levin (editors) ''E=mc&sup2; explained'', June, 2005. PBS ''NOVA'']</ref> Here is a sample of five of the statements:<br />
{{cquote|''It's something that doesn't happen in your kitchen or in everyday life.''|||[[Neil deGrasse Tyson]], Astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History}}{{cquote|''When an object emits light, say, a flashlight, it gets lighter.''|||Sheldon Glashow, Theoretical Physicist and Nobel Laureate, Boston University}}{{cquote|''Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.''|||Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University}}{{cquote|''You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.''|||Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University}}{{<br />
cquote|''It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.''|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}<br />
<br />
Of these, only the Sheldon Glashow quote makes a specific and meaningful statement about what the equation means.<br />
<br />
== What the Equation Means ==<br />
The equation is about energy, both kinetic energy and potential energy.<br />
<br />
Kinetic energy is actual visible energy, that is, energy of things that are in motion. It's the energy of a thrown baseball. Radiation (for example, light) also counts as kinetic energy&mdash;it's the motion of photons. Light carries energy, force, and momentum. The force carried by light is not as obvious as the force of a thrown baseball, but it is there. The force of sunlight has been proposed for long-term space travel. It is also the force that causes the [[Pioneer anomaly]] and the force that makes a comet's tail stream away from the Sun.<br />
<br />
Potential energy is the other kind&mdash;"hidden" energy. It can become kinetic energy, or vice-versa. A wound up spring, a charged battery, a stretched rubber band, a mixture of gasoline and air, an explosive, and a radioactive atom, all have potential energy. It's what is needed to make the principle of conservation of energy work. That is, when kinetic energy comes into existence, it's because potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. The wound-up spring of a clock has potential energy, that runs down over time, being converted into the kinetic energy of the ticking sound. A battery has potential energy that runs down when it provides electricity to make things move. Various chemical substances have characteristic amounts of potential energy, that may be converted to or from kinetic energy when chemical reactions occur. For example, Sodium and Chlorine have more potential energy than Sodium Chloride. Explosives have more potential energy than their constituent atoms. Radioactive atoms have more potential energy than their "daughter" atoms.<br />
<br />
The principle of ''conservation of energy'', universally accepted for well over 100 years, says<br />
<br />
::Total energy (kinetic + potential) is always conserved.<br />
<br />
Hundreds of years of research by chemists (and, before that, the alchemists) worked out the potential energies that are characteristic of various substances, and that the potential and kinetic energies are accurately converted from one to the other, leading to the principle of conservation of total energy.<br />
<br />
An interesting fact is that, normally, one considers only ''changes'' in potential energy; one doesn't need an absolute scale. A rock at the top of a hill has more potential energy than after it rolls to the bottom of the hill, but the energy at the bottom isn't necessarily zero. We could dig a hole and let it roll down farther, with its energy going negative. Only changes matter. Now it turns out that, once one accepts the implications of E=mc², one ''could'' assign an absolute potential energy to something&mdash;its mass times c², and changes in potential energy would work out correctly because of the mass changes. But that isn't necessary, and, in any case, it would require accepting E=mc² and would therefore be getting ahead of the story.<br />
<br />
<br />
With those preliminaries out of the way, it is possible to give a concise explanation of what the equation means:<br />
<br />
::'''Potential energy has mass.'''<br />
<br />
That is, it weighs something. Whenever anything has potential energy of any kind in it, improbable as this may sound, it weighs more. The proportionality constant is 1/c<sup>2</sup>, or 1.11 x 10<sup>−17</sup> kilograms per joule. A fresh battery weighs more than a spent one, a wound-up alarm clock weighs more than a run-down one, etc.<br />
<br />
Now that's way too small to measure for anything other than nuclear reactions, which is why it escaped everyone's notice for so long. But it has been measured and experimentally verified for nuclear transformations all across the periodic table.<br />
<br />
:There's an interesting parallel with heat. Before the rise of thermodynamics, it was believed that heat was a "substance". That substance was called "caloric". When heat travels from one body to another, what was really happening was presumed to be a transfer of caloric. Much effort was put into measuring the mass of this mysterious "substance". It was always found to be zero, and we now know that what is actually being transferred is thermal energy. So it is not unheard-of to assign mass to intangible properties.<br />
<br />
The nonzero mass of potential energy, and the equation E=mc², were determined on theoretical grounds, before any experimental observations were made. The logic of this follows from these assumptions:<br />
<br />
#Galilean and Newtonian mechanics.<br />
#Galilean relativity, that is, the notion that there is no absolute frame of reference.<br />
#Conservation of energy.<br />
#Conservation of momentum. (So far this is just classical physics.)<br />
#The universality of the speed of light. (That is, special relativity.)<br />
<br />
Keep in mind that, under special relativity, it's not just space and time that need to be redefined. The definitions of momentum and energy need to change also. This is necessary so that the '''conservation of energy and of momentum will be absolutely precise in all circumstances.'''<br />
<br />
Under classical Newtonian mechanics, the momentum and kinetic energy of a moving mass are<br />
:<math>p = mv\,</math><br />
and<br />
:<math>E = \frac{1}{2}mv^2\,</math><br />
respectively. But under special relativity they are<br />
:<math>p = \frac{mv}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}\,</math><br />
and<br />
:<math>E = mc^2\left(\frac{1}{1 - v^2/c^2} - 1\right)\,</math><br />
One can verify that, in the non-relativistic limit, the relativistic values converge to the classical ones.<br />
<br />
It is this requirement, and some "gedanken experiments" involving conversion between potential and kinetic energy, that lead to E=mc².<ref name="wvarticles"/> These experiments involve some kind of object that isn't moving (though there might be internal motion that doesn't figure in the experiment) and therefore has no kinetic energy and only potential energy, turning into some things that have kinetic energy. The requirements of strict conservation of total momentum and total energy prove the equation.<br />
<br />
Einstein's famous derivation<ref name="einstein1905b">[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?" Albert Einstein, Sept 1905]</ref> involved light instead of tangible objects, but the result is the same.<br />
<br />
==History of Experimental Verification==<br />
Because the change in mass arising from a given release of energy is so small (<math>1/c^2</math>, which 1.11 x 10<sup>−17</sup> kilograms per joule), it is essentially impossible to check this equation for normal processes. For example, a flashlight battery loses about 1 picogram of mass when it discharges, and the resultant atoms from the detonation of 1 kilogram of TNT weigh 47 nanograms less than the TNT. Even if all the particles of smoke and gas could be collected reliably, the difference couldn't be detected.<br />
<br />
Measuring the effect requires process that release vastly more energy than ordinary chemical processes. The discovery of Radium and Polonium around 1898 gave a tantalizing hint that there were processes that released far more energy than chemical processes could account for. These elements continuously released measurable heat, and also glowed in the dark.<br />
<br />
Einstein touched on this possibility in his original 1905 paper.<ref name=einstein1905b/><br />
{{cquote|''It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully put to the test.''}}It would take more than a decade to develop an understanding of the nuclear process involved. The first thing that was required was accurate knowledge of atomic weights.<br />
<br />
Atomic weights of the various elements were first measured, with accuracy of a few decimal places, by J. J. Berzelius in the late 1820s. This required extremely painstaking (for the time) measurements. The figures were refined to even more accuracy by J. A. R. Newlands in the 1860s. The values were accurate enough to clearly show the rather interesting property that the atomic weights were nearly integers, but not exactly so. The reason for this would turn out to be partly because of different isotopes (discovered by Frederick Soddy in 1913) and partly because of E=mc<sup>2</sup>.<br />
<br />
In 1907 Rutherford determined that the "alpha" radiation from Radium was Helium. In 1911 he formulated the theory of the nucleus. In 1919 he demonstrated that nuclear transmutations could take place, such as<br />
<br />
::<math>{}_7^{14}\mathrm{N}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}\,\rightarrow\, {}_8^{17}\mathrm{O}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}</math><br />
<br />
The discovery of Radon, and much further investigation, revealed that the behavior of Radium was<br />
<br />
::<math>{}_{88}^{226}\mathrm{Ra}\,\rightarrow\, {}_{86}^{222}\mathrm{Rn}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math><br />
and<br />
::<math>{}_{86}^{222}\mathrm{Rn}\,\rightarrow\, {}_{84}^{218}\mathrm{Po}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math><br />
<br />
Accurate ways of measuring speed of a charged particle, by deflecting it in a magnetic field, had been developed by then, so that, by very painstaking observation and measurement, it was determined that the first alpha particle (Helium nucleus) had an energy of 4.78 MeV and the second an energy of 5.49 Mev. This confirmed E=mc<sup>2</sup> up to the accuracy of the measurements. The equation, along with knowledge of isotope mixes, now explained why the atomic weights appearing in the periodic table were nearly integers, but not exactly so.<br />
<br />
Around 1925, the development of the mass spectrograph, by Francis Aston, made it possible to measure atomic weights to extreme precision.<br />
<br />
The 1932 Cockcroft-Walton experiment, described in more detail below, started to make the equation famous by confirming it, with reasonable accuracy, for an artificially induced nuclear reaction. (Confirming E=mc<sup>2</sup> was not a goal of the experiment; it was an incidental consequence. The equation had already been known and understood for many years.)<br />
<br />
In the decades since, nuclear transmutations have been performed, in particle accelerators, all over the periodic table, observing in detail the properties of various isotopes. These have confirmed E=mc<sup>2</sup> with great precision. See [[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]].<br />
<br />
==The Rainville test==<br />
Perhaps the most precise direct empirical verification of E=mc<sup>2</sup> was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville ''et. al.''<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref> The article states that &quot;Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−&Delta;mc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10<sup>−7</sup>, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described.&quot;<br />
<br />
==The Cockcroft-Walton experiment, not to be taken as a verification or "proof"==<br />
It is important to be aware that this experiment is not one of the ones usually cited as validating E=mc². That was not its goal.<br />
<br />
In 1932 English physicist John Cockcroft and Irish physicist Ernest Walton performed the first artificial nuclear transmutation of nuclei, for which they were awarded the 1951 [[Nobel Prize]] in physics.<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf John D. Cockroft ''Experiments on the interaction of high-speed nucleons with atomic nuclei''], Nobel Lecture, Dec 11, 1951</ref> The award was for ''&quot;their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles.&quot;''<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/# Nobel Prize Organization]</ref> <br />
<br />
Verifying E=mc² was not the goal of the experiment, and the Nobel prize was awarded for the transmutation itself, not any verification of the equation. This experiment could not possibly have proved any general truth to the equation. But data from this experiment was consistent with the equation for the particular transmutation involved.<br />
<br />
They bombarded [[Lithium]] atoms with [[protons]] having a [[kinetic energy]] less than 1 [[Electron-Volts|MeV]]. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[alpha particle]]s, for which the [[kinetic energy]] was measured as 17.3 MeV<br />
<br />
:::::<math>{}_3^7\mathrm{Li}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}\,\rightarrow\,2\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math><br />
<br />
The mass of the particles on the left hand side is 8.0263 [[atomic mass units|amu]], the mass on the right hand side ''only'' 8.0077 amu.<ref>Gerard Piel ''The age of science: what scientists learned in the 20th century'', Basic Books, 2001, p. 144-145</ref> The difference between this masses is .00186 amu, which results in the following back-of-an-envelope calculation:<br />
<br />
::::<math>0.00186\,\mathrm{amu} \cdot c^2 = 0.0186 \cdot 1.66 \cdot 10^{-27}\,\mathrm{kg}\cdot\left(3\cdot10^8\,\mathrm{\frac{m}{s}}\right)^2</math><br />
::::<math>\approx\,2.79\cdot 10^{-12} \,\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}</math><br />
::::<math>\approx \,17.3\,\mathrm{MeV}</math><br />
<br />
Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:<br />
<br />
==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==<br />
<br />
For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc&sup2;. (The equation applies to '''all''' interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc&sup2; applies only to nuclear interactions.)<br />
<br />
The [[Theory of Relativity]] played no role in this work, but proponents later tried to retrofit the theory to the data in order to explain the explain the observed mass changes.<ref>Actually, the formula E=mc<sup>2</sup> was published in 1905, and has not changed since then. Fission of Uranium was discovered in 1938. It is not possible that the equation was retrofitted to explain this discovery.</ref> Here is the most famous example of the mass change.<br />
<br />
Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by [[Otto Hahn]] and [[Fritz Strassman]], and analyzed by [[Lise Meitner]], in 1938.<br />
<br />
There are a great number of decay paths of [[Uranium]] fission that figured in this experiment. The result element that most caught their attention was [[Barium]], because it was chemically related to the Radium that they were expecting. One of the fission paths may have been this:<br />
<br />
:<sup>235</sup>U &rarr; <sup>140</sup>Xe + <sup>91</sup>Sr + 4n<br />
<br />
(The [[Xenon]] decayed within about a minute to <sup>140</sup>Ba. They were searching for the chemical signature of Barium.)<br />
<br />
The masses of the particles are:<br />
<br />
{| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; border=&quot;1&quot; cellpadding=&quot;8&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; <br />
! Substance<br />
! <sup>235</sup>U<br />
! <sup>140</sup>Xe<br />
! <sup>91</sup>Sr<br />
! 4 neutrons<br />
|-<br />
| Number of protons<br />
| 92<br />
| 54<br />
| 38<br />
| 0<br />
|-<br />
| Number of neutrons<br />
| 235<br />
| 140<br />
| 91<br />
| 4<br />
|-<br />
| Number of electrons<br />
| 92<br />
| 54<br />
| 38<br />
| 0<br />
|-<br />
| Mass<br />
| 235.04393<br />
| 139.92164<br />
| 90.910203<br />
| 4.03466<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The mass of the Uranium atom is 235.04393, and the sum of the masses of the products is 234.866503. The difference is .177427 amu, or, using the E=mc&sup2; equation, 165 million electron volts. (The generally accepted value for the total energy released by Uranium fission, including secondary decays, is about 200 million electron volts.)<br />
<br />
The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate &quot;mass defect&quot; quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc&sup2; equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.<br />
<br />
==A Topical Example: Speed of Extremely Energetic Neutrinos==<br />
Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. In 2011 there were [http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos?newsfeed=true reports] that high-energy neutrinos had been observed traveling at a speed faster than the speed of light in an experiment at the Gran Sasso laboratory in Italy. Specifically, they seemed to have arrived at the detector 60 nanoseconds faster than light would have. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel ''at'' the speed of light. <br />
<br />
The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10<sup>−36</sup>kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc<sup>2</sup>. If we don't accept that, we have to do the calculations under classical physics, using SI (meter/kilogram/second) units.) The neutrinos were accelerated to an energy of about 17GeV, or .27x10<sup>−8</sup>Joules. If one did not accept relativity and had to use classical physics and the classical formula <math>\mathrm{E} = \frac{1}{2}mv^2</math>, one would get v=110x10<sup>12</sup> meters per second. This is about 370,000 times the speed of light, something that scientists would certainly have noticed. In fact, with special relativity, the speed is just under the speed of light, such that the neutrinos should be received at the detector about .26x10<sup>−24</sup> seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is far too small to measure&mdash;15 orders of magnitude smaller than the resolution of the GPS signals in the experiment.<br />
<br />
Later [http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/02/official-word-superluminal-neutrinos-leaves-warp-drive-fans-shred-hope%E2%80%94barely?ref=hp reports] started to resolve the mystery, and it is now accepted that the neutrinos behaved properly. But a BBC reporter made the incorrect statement that [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682 the neutrinos travelled at precisely light speed]. This was a simple misstatement, by .26 yoctoseconds.<br />
<br />
The issue was discussed at length at Conservapedia.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#Faster_than_light_neutrinos</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#The_final_nail_in_the_coffin_of_relativity.3F</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#Another_Blow_to_Relativity</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/109#Neutrinos_now_obey_speed_limit</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/111#Neutrinos</ref><br />
<br />
==Deducing the Equation From Empirical Observation==<br />
<br />
While the equation was historically developed on theoretical grounds as an inevitable consequence of special relativity, it is possible to deduce it purely from empirical observation.<br />
<br />
So, for the purposes of this section, imagine that one is in the era of "classical physics"; prior to 1900 or so. Relativity has not been invented, but, inexplicably, nuclear physics has. Imagine that the phenomena of radioactivity and nuclear fission have been observed, without any knowledge of relativity.<br />
<br />
A well-accepted physical law of classical physics was the law of conservation of mass. This was not easy to deduce. It required careful analysis of such phenomena as combustion, in the 1700s, to eliminate the various confounding sub-phenomena that made the law difficult to see. But, by 1900, the law was well established:<br />
<br />
:::*'''In all interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''<br />
<br />
For example, the mass of a TNT molecule is 227.1311 Daltons, or 227.1311 g/mol, which is, for all practical purposes, the same as the mass of its constituent Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen atoms. It is essentially impossible to measure the difference. The principle of conservation of mass is upheld.<br />
<br />
But when nuclear phenomena are discovered, we notice something different. The masses of the result particles after an event (e.g. alpha decay, nuclear fission, or artificial transmutation) is measurably less than the masses of the original particle(s). With the invention of the mass spectrometer around 1920, it became possible to measure atomic weights of various isotopes with great precision.<br />
<br />
Radium-226 decays into Radon-222 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 4.78 MeV.<br />
<br />
1&nbsp;kg of Radium-226 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{226.0254}</math> atoms. (The numerator is [[Avogadro's number]], and the denominator is the atomic weight of Radium-226.) This is 2.6643647 * 10<sup>24</sup> atoms.<br />
<br />
That number of Radon-222 atoms has mass .98226836&nbsp;kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01770863&nbsp;kg.<br />
The mass lost is .00002301&nbsp;kg.<br />
<br />
Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 4.78 MeV, or 4.78 * .1602 * 10<sup>−18</sup> Joules. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1&nbsp;kg of radium is 2.04 * 10<sup>12</sup> Joules.<br />
<br />
<br />
Also, Radon-222 decays into Polonium-218 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 5.49 MeV.<br />
<br />
1&nbsp;kg of Radon-222 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{222.0176}</math> atoms. This is 2.7124611 * 10<sup>24</sup> atoms.<br />
<br />
That number of Polonium-218 atoms has mass .98194467&nbsp;kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01802830&nbsp;kg.<br />
<br />
The mass lost is .00002703&nbsp;kg.<br />
<br />
Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 5.49 MeV. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1&nbsp;kg of polonium is 2.39 * 10<sup>12</sup> Joules.<br />
<br />
It looks as thought we have to rewrite the law of conservation of mass:<br />
<br />
:::*'''In all "ordinary" interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''<br />
:::*'''In nuclear interactions, there is a small but measurable loss of mass.'''<br />
<br />
:By the way, we can clearly see that atomic weights of pure isotopes are not integers, and that it has something to do with the energy released by nuclear disintegration. In retrospect, the formula E=mc&sup2; explains the non-integer character of atomic weights.<br />
<br />
Making special cases like this is unsatisfactory, of course.<br />
<br />
We do this for a few other interactions, including the explosion of TNT. This would include the Lithium-plus-Hydrogen and Uranium fission phenomena described above. We won't bother with the details. As observational scientists, we look for patterns in the behavior of nature. We make a table:<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" <br />
! interaction<br />
! energy released per kg, Joules<br />
! mass lost per kg of original substance, kg<br />
|-<br />
| explosion of TNT<br />
| 4.184 * 10<sup>6</sup><br />
| seems to be zero<br />
|-<br />
| alpha decay of Ra-226<br />
| 2.04 * 10<sup>12</sup><br />
| .00002301&nbsp;kg<br />
|-<br />
| alpha decay of Rn-222<br />
| 2.39 * 10<sup>12</sup><br />
| .00002703&nbsp;kg<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
We plot these, and a few others, not shown, on graph paper, and find to our amazement that the relationship is linear.<br />
<br />
For Ra, m/E = .112794118 E-16<br />
For Po, m/E = .113096234 E-16<br />
<br />
If this is linear, the mass defect for TNT would have been .47 * 10<sup>−10</sup>. We couldn't possibly have measured this.<br />
<br />
So we can rewrite the rule for conservation of mass in a more satisfactory way:<br />
<br />
:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to about .113 * 10<sup>-16</sup> kg per Joule of energy released.'''<br />
<br />
What we thought was exact conservation is just very nearly exact, and we hadn't been able to measure it before.<br />
<br />
But maybe there's more. This constant has dimensions of kilograms per Joule. From high-school physics, we know that that is seconds squared divided by meters squared. That is, it is the reciprocal of the square of a velocity. We calculate that velocity. It is about 2.97 * 10<sup>8</sup> meters per second. Very close to the speed of light! Very interesting! (The calculations above were not extremely precise. The formula has been verified with great precision, but not here.)<br />
<br />
We don't understand why (that will have to wait for the invention of relativity), but we can formulate a hypothesis:<br />
<br />
:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to <math>\frac{1}{c^2}</math> times the amount of energy released.'''<br />
<br />
We don't have to give the units any more, since everything is now dimensionally correct.<br />
<br />
::There is a very interesting analogy with the discovery of [[Maxwell's Equations]]. Maxwell found an interesting relationship involving the fundamental constants <math>\epsilon\,</math> and <math>\mu\,</math> appearing in his equations. Specifically, <math>\epsilon\mu\,</math> has the dimensions of seconds squared divided by meters squared, and that:<br />
<br />
:::::<math>\frac{1}{\epsilon\mu} = c^2</math><br />
<br />
::where "c" was the known velocity of light. He also showed that his equations predict electromagnetic waves, propagating at that speed.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Attempts to prove E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]]<br />
*[[E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /><br />
[[Category:Relativity]]<br />
[[Category:Laws of Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Physics]]</div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=E%3Dmc%C2%B2&diff=1448023E=mc²2018-09-14T16:47:38Z<p>SamHB: /* See also */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''E=mc&sup2;''' asserts that the energy ('''E''') in an unmoving particle is equal to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c&sup2;''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that particle.<ref>"Energy and mass are linked in the most famous relationship in physics: E = mc&sup2;. (The energy content of a body is equal to the mass of the body times the speed of light squared.)" [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/einstein-genius-among-geniuses.html Einstein: Genius Among Geniuses] - PBS's NOVA</ref> The complete form, when applied to moving objects, is [[E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2|E&sup2;=(mc&sup2;)&sup2;+(pc)&sup2;]], where '''p''' represents momentum,<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnMIhxWRGNw</ref> It is a statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[energy]]. In fact, no [[theory]] has successfully unified the [[law]]s governing [[mass]] (''i.e.'', [[gravity]]) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', [[electromagnetism]]), and numerous attempts to derive '''E=mc&sup2;''' from first principles have failed.<ref name="wvarticles">Five lectures at Wikiversity. The 4th one derives the formula, using the assumptions in the "What the Equation Means" section.<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/space,_time,_and_the_Lorentz_transform Lecture 1]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/momentum Lecture 2]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/energy Lecture 3]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/E_%3D_mc%C2%B2 Lecture 4]<br />
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/spacetime_diagrams_and_vectors Lecture 5]</ref> [[Politics|Political]] pressure, however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in [[science]] to even question the validity of this nonsensical [[equation]]. ''Simply put, E=mc&sup2; is [[liberal claptrap]]''.<br />
<br />
The formula asserts that the mass of an object, at constant energy, magically varies precisely in inverse proportion to the square of a change in the speed of light over time,<ref>http://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html</ref> which violates [[conservation of mass]] and disagrees with commonsense.<ref>The formula asserts that the mass of an object has energy associated with it, even when it is not moving (p=0). The formula asserts a relationship between the rest mass of an object, its energy and the speed of light. According to the formula, the apparent mass of an object depends on its energy and so [[conservation of mass]] is not satisfied. Instead, relativity proposes that the total energy of a [[closed system]] is conserved, when we &quot;convert&quot; the masses into energies using this formula.</ref><br />
<br />
Physicists have never been able to unify light with matter<ref>Quantum Electrodynamics describes how matter interacts with matter, the standard model of particle physics describes how matter (fermions) interact with bosons (force carriers) for the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces. To date, no theory has been proven to unify gravity with electromagnetism.</ref> despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so.<ref>Much of 20th century physics has centered around the interactions between photons (light) and fermionic matter, and much more than a billion dollars has been spent on this. But that doesn't imply that they have been "unified".</ref> [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]] predicts that there is no unified theory of light and matter because they were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]].<br />
<br />
[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic [[energy]] of an object (such as an [[atom]]) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to the accepted view (as predicted by [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]) that the forces of nature have not been unified. Liberal scientists assert the formula E=mc&sup2; is not limited to nuclear reactions; it applies to chemical reactions and even to the energy stored in a compressed spring.<ref>http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99140.htm</ref><br />
<br />
The claim that '''E=mc&sup2;''' has never yielded anything of value and it has often been used as a redefinition of &quot;[[energy]]&quot; for pseudo-scientific purposes by non-scientific journals. Claims can be found not only on liberal, second-tier college websites but at those of [[Baylor]] and the [[MIT]] that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation and [[nuclear weapon]]s ([[nuclear fusion]] and [[nuclear fission]]) and about [[antimatter]].<ref>[http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/E=mcsquared/index.html John D. Norton ''Einstein for everyone - E=mc²''], Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Pittsburgh</ref><ref>[http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/releng.html Rod Nave ''HpyerPhysics - Relativistic Energy''], Georgia State University</ref><ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html Peter Tyson ''The Legacy of E=mc&sup2;''] October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''.</ref><br />
<br />
The [[Theory of Relativity]] has never been able to mathematically derive '''E=mc&sup2;''' from first principles,<ref name="wvarticles"/> and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H Eugene Hecht: ''How Einstein confirmed E<sub>0</sub>=mc&sup2;'', American Journal of Physics, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp. 591-600 (2011)]</ref> Nevertheless, Robert Dicke - one of the most accomplished American-born physicists and experimental physicists in history - found it unlikely that the equivalence was wrong.<ref>R. H. Dicke "The Theoretical Significance of Experimental Relativity", Gordon and Breach, 1964</ref><br />
<br />
It has been known for a long time that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by [[Henri Poincaré]] in 1904,<ref>[http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540 Herbert E. Ives ''Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation'', JOSA, Vol. 42, Issue 8, pp. 540-543 (1952)]</ref> but the equation '''E=mc&sup2;''' makes a claim far beyond that limited circumstance:<br />
<br />
{{cquote|The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).|||[[Herbert Ives]], 1952}}<br />
<!--In 1907, [[Max Planck]] proved in his fundamental paper that the formula ''E=mc&sup2;'' is not a general law and any system submitted to an external pressure will obey a different law: its mass will be proportional to its enthalpy ''H=E+PV'', that is, ''m=H/c&sup2;''<ref name="Capria">{{cite book |author=Marco M. Capria, Aubert Daigneaut et al. |title=Physics Before and After Einstein |publisher=IOS Press |year=2005 |chapter=2.Mechanics and Electromagnetism... |pages=43|isbn=1-58603-462-6 |url=http://www.dmi.unipg.it/~mamone/pubb/PBAE.pdf |quote=}}</ref>.--><br />
<br />
== Description for the layman ==<br />
<br />
The equation is extremely famous, and just as extremely misunderstood, in popular culture. Among the more outlandish claims are statements to the effect that "E=mc&sup2; holds the secret of the atomic bomb."<ref>Not so. The energy of the atomic bomb comes not from E=mc&sup2;, but from the tension between the electrostatic force and the strong nuclear force. E=mc&sup2; simply meant that the fission products from the [[Little Boy|Hiroshima]] bomb weighed 0.7 grams less than the original Uranium.</ref><br />
[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|<br />
*"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>]]<br />
The equation has acquired something of a "cult" status. In the USA, the popular ''[[Twilight Zone]]'' series featured '''E=mc&sup2;''' prominently, giving the equation greater currency with the public. The song ''[[Albert Einstein|Einstein]] A Go-Go'' by the band Landscape had a similar effect in the UK in the 1980s. The equation was the title of a single by ''Big Audio Dynamite'' in 1985, and an album by Mariah Carey in 2008. Some movies have been themed on this equation.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322120/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_2, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116160/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_1</ref> The equation, along with a picture of a mushroom cloud and a picture of [[Albert Einstein]], were featured on the front cover of an issue of ''Time'' magazine in 1946. All of this is disappointing when one considers how few people actually understand what the equation is saying.<br />
<br />
A number of science writers&mdash;both serious scientists and science popularizers&mdash;have at various times written their own explanation of the equation. Some of these are helpful; many are not. One of the better ones, though not without its share of nonsense, is a NOVA series by the [[Public Broadcasting Service]]<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/ancestors-einstein.html David Bodanis ''Ancestors of E=mc&sup2;''], Nov 10, 2005, NOVA</ref><br />
<br />
In 2005 The PBS NOVA series also asked 10 physicists to describe the equation in layman's terms.<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html Lexi Krock, David Levin (editors) ''E=mc&sup2; explained'', June, 2005. PBS ''NOVA'']</ref> Here is a sample of five of the statements:<br />
{{cquote|''It's something that doesn't happen in your kitchen or in everyday life.''|||[[Neil deGrasse Tyson]], Astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History}}{{cquote|''When an object emits light, say, a flashlight, it gets lighter.''|||Sheldon Glashow, Theoretical Physicist and Nobel Laureate, Boston University}}{{cquote|''Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.''|||Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University}}{{cquote|''You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.''|||Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University}}{{<br />
cquote|''It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.''|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}<br />
<br />
Of these, only the Sheldon Glashow quote makes a specific and meaningful statement about what the equation means.<br />
<br />
== What the Equation Means ==<br />
The equation is about energy, both kinetic energy and potential energy.<br />
<br />
Kinetic energy is actual visible energy, that is, energy of things that are in motion. It's the energy of a thrown baseball. Radiation (for example, light) also counts as kinetic energy&mdash;it's the motion of photons. Light carries energy, force, and momentum. The force carried by light is not as obvious as the force of a thrown baseball, but it is there. The force of sunlight has been proposed for long-term space travel. It is also the force that causes the [[Pioneer anomaly]] and the force that makes a comet's tail stream away from the Sun.<br />
<br />
Potential energy is the other kind&mdash;"hidden" energy. It can become kinetic energy, or vice-versa. A wound up spring, a charged battery, a stretched rubber band, a mixture of gasoline and air, an explosive, and a radioactive atom, all have potential energy. It's what is needed to make the principle of conservation of energy work. That is, when kinetic energy comes into existence, it's because potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. The wound-up spring of a clock has potential energy, that runs down over time, being converted into the kinetic energy of the ticking sound. A battery has potential energy that runs down when it provides electricity to make things move. Various chemical substances have characteristic amounts of potential energy, that may be converted to or from kinetic energy when chemical reactions occur. For example, Sodium and Chlorine have more potential energy than Sodium Chloride. Explosives have more potential energy than their constituent atoms. Radioactive atoms have more potential energy than their "daughter" atoms.<br />
<br />
The principle of ''conservation of energy'', universally accepted for well over 100 years, says<br />
<br />
::Total energy (kinetic + potential) is always conserved.<br />
<br />
Hundreds of years of research by chemists (and, before that, the alchemists) worked out the potential energies that are characteristic of various substances, and that the potential and kinetic energies are accurately converted from one to the other, leading to the principle of conservation of total energy.<br />
<br />
An interesting fact is that, normally, one considers only ''changes'' in potential energy; one doesn't need an absolute scale. A rock at the top of a hill has more potential energy than after it rolls to the bottom of the hill, but the energy at the bottom isn't necessarily zero. We could dig a hole and let it roll down farther, with its energy going negative. Only changes matter. Now it turns out that, once one accepts the implications of E=mc², one ''could'' assign an absolute potential energy to something&mdash;its mass times c², and changes in potential energy would work out correctly because of the mass changes. But that isn't necessary, and, in any case, it would require accepting E=mc² and would therefore be getting ahead of the story.<br />
<br />
<br />
With those preliminaries out of the way, it is possible to give a concise explanation of what the equation means:<br />
<br />
::'''Potential energy has mass.'''<br />
<br />
That is, it weighs something. Whenever anything has potential energy of any kind in it, improbable as this may sound, it weighs more. The proportionality constant is 1/c<sup>2</sup>, or 1.11 x 10<sup>−17</sup> kilograms per joule. A fresh battery weighs more than a spent one, a wound-up alarm clock weighs more than a run-down one, etc.<br />
<br />
Now that's way too small to measure for anything other than nuclear reactions, which is why it escaped everyone's notice for so long. But it has been measured and experimentally verified for nuclear transformations all across the periodic table.<br />
<br />
:There's an interesting parallel with heat. Before the rise of thermodynamics, it was believed that heat was a "substance". That substance was called "caloric". When heat travels from one body to another, what was really happening was presumed to be a transfer of caloric. Much effort was put into measuring the mass of this mysterious "substance". It was always found to be zero, and we now know that what is actually being transferred is thermal energy. So it is not unheard-of to assign mass to intangible properties.<br />
<br />
The nonzero mass of potential energy, and the equation E=mc², were determined on theoretical grounds, before any experimental observations were made. The logic of this follows from these assumptions:<br />
<br />
#Galilean and Newtonian mechanics.<br />
#Galilean relativity, that is, the notion that there is no absolute frame of reference.<br />
#Conservation of energy.<br />
#Conservation of momentum. (So far this is just classical physics.)<br />
#The universality of the speed of light. (That is, special relativity.)<br />
<br />
Keep in mind that, under special relativity, it's not just space and time that need to be redefined. The definitions of momentum and energy need to change also. This is necessary so that the '''conservation of energy and of momentum will be absolutely precise in all circumstances.'''<br />
<br />
Under classical Newtonian mechanics, the momentum and kinetic energy of a moving mass are<br />
:<math>p = mv\,</math><br />
and<br />
:<math>E = \frac{1}{2}mv^2\,</math><br />
respectively. But under special relativity they are<br />
:<math>p = \frac{mv}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}\,</math><br />
and<br />
:<math>E = mc^2\left(\frac{1}{1 - v^2/c^2} - 1\right)\,</math><br />
One can verify that, in the non-relativistic limit, the relativistic values converge to the classical ones.<br />
<br />
It is this requirement, and some "gedanken experiments" involving conversion between potential and kinetic energy, that lead to E=mc².<ref name="wvarticles"/> These experiments involve some kind of object that isn't moving (though there might be internal motion that doesn't figure in the experiment) and therefore has no kinetic energy and only potential energy, turning into some things that have kinetic energy. The requirements of strict conservation of total momentum and total energy prove the equation.<br />
<br />
Einstein's famous derivation<ref name="einstein1905b">[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?" Albert Einstein, Sept 1905]</ref> involved light instead of tangible objects, but the result is the same.<br />
<br />
==History of Experimental Verification==<br />
Because the change in mass arising from a given release of energy is so small (<math>1/c^2</math>, which 1.11 x 10<sup>−17</sup> kilograms per joule), it is essentially impossible to check this equation for normal processes. For example, a flashlight battery loses about 1 picogram of mass when it discharges, and the resultant atoms from the detonation of 1 kilogram of TNT weigh 47 nanograms less than the TNT. Even if all the particles of smoke and gas could be collected reliably, the difference couldn't be detected.<br />
<br />
Measuring the effect requires process that release vastly more energy than ordinary chemical processes. The discovery of Radium and Polonium around 1898 gave a tantalizing hint that there were processes that released far more energy than chemical processes could account for. These elements continuously released measurable heat, and also glowed in the dark.<br />
<br />
Einstein touched on this possibility in his original 1905 paper.<ref name=einstein1905b/><br />
{{cquote|''It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully put to the test.''}}It would take more than a decade to develop an understanding of the nuclear process involved. The first thing that was required was accurate knowledge of atomic weights.<br />
<br />
Atomic weights of the various elements were first measured, with accuracy of a few decimal places, by J. J. Berzelius in the late 1820s. This required extremely painstaking (for the time) measurements. The figures were refined to even more accuracy by J. A. R. Newlands in the 1860s. The values were accurate enough to clearly show the rather interesting property that the atomic weights were nearly integers, but not exactly so. The reason for this would turn out to be partly because of different isotopes (discovered by Frederick Soddy in 1913) and partly because of E=mc<sup>2</sup>.<br />
<br />
In 1907 Rutherford determined that the "alpha" radiation from Radium was Helium. In 1911 he formulated the theory of the nucleus. In 1919 he demonstrated that nuclear transmutations could take place, such as<br />
<br />
::<math>{}_7^{14}\mathrm{N}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}\,\rightarrow\, {}_8^{17}\mathrm{O}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}</math><br />
<br />
The discovery of Radon, and much further investigation, revealed that the behavior of Radium was<br />
<br />
::<math>{}_{88}^{226}\mathrm{Ra}\,\rightarrow\, {}_{86}^{222}\mathrm{Rn}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math><br />
and<br />
::<math>{}_{86}^{222}\mathrm{Rn}\,\rightarrow\, {}_{84}^{218}\mathrm{Po}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math><br />
<br />
Accurate ways of measuring speed of a charged particle, by deflecting it in a magnetic field, had been developed by then, so that, by very painstaking observation and measurement, it was determined that the first alpha particle (Helium nucleus) had an energy of 4.78 MeV and the second an energy of 5.49 Mev. This confirmed E=mc<sup>2</sup> up to the accuracy of the measurements. The equation, along with knowledge of isotope mixes, now explained why the atomic weights appearing in the periodic table were nearly integers, but not exactly so.<br />
<br />
Around 1925, the development of the mass spectrograph, by Francis Aston, made it possible to measure atomic weights to extreme precision.<br />
<br />
The 1932 Cockcroft-Walton experiment, described in more detail below, started to make the equation famous by confirming it, with reasonable accuracy, for an artificially induced nuclear reaction. (Confirming E=mc<sup>2</sup> was not a goal of the experiment; it was an incidental consequence. The equation had already been known and understood for many years.)<br />
<br />
In the decades since, nuclear transmutations have been performed, in particle accelerators, all over the periodic table, observing in detail the properties of various isotopes. These have confirmed E=mc<sup>2</sup> with great precision.<br />
<br />
==The Rainville test==<br />
Perhaps the most precise direct empirical verification of E=mc<sup>2</sup> was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville ''et. al.''<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref> The article states that &quot;Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−&Delta;mc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10<sup>−7</sup>, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described.&quot;<br />
<br />
==The Cockcroft-Walton experiment, not to be taken as a verification or "proof"==<br />
It is important to be aware that this experiment is not one of the ones usually cited as validating E=mc². That was not its goal.<br />
<br />
In 1932 English physicist John Cockcroft and Irish physicist Ernest Walton performed the first artificial nuclear transmutation of nuclei, for which they were awarded the 1951 [[Nobel Prize]] in physics.<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf John D. Cockroft ''Experiments on the interaction of high-speed nucleons with atomic nuclei''], Nobel Lecture, Dec 11, 1951</ref> The award was for ''&quot;their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles.&quot;''<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/# Nobel Prize Organization]</ref> <br />
<br />
Verifying E=mc² was not the goal of the experiment, and the Nobel prize was awarded for the transmutation itself, not any verification of the equation. This experiment could not possibly have proved any general truth to the equation. But data from this experiment was consistent with the equation for the particular transmutation involved.<br />
<br />
They bombarded [[Lithium]] atoms with [[protons]] having a [[kinetic energy]] less than 1 [[Electron-Volts|MeV]]. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[alpha particle]]s, for which the [[kinetic energy]] was measured as 17.3 MeV<br />
<br />
:::::<math>{}_3^7\mathrm{Li}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}\,\rightarrow\,2\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math><br />
<br />
The mass of the particles on the left hand side is 8.0263 [[atomic mass units|amu]], the mass on the right hand side ''only'' 8.0077 amu.<ref>Gerard Piel ''The age of science: what scientists learned in the 20th century'', Basic Books, 2001, p. 144-145</ref> The difference between this masses is .00186 amu, which results in the following back-of-an-envelope calculation:<br />
<br />
::::<math>0.00186\,\mathrm{amu} \cdot c^2 = 0.0186 \cdot 1.66 \cdot 10^{-27}\,\mathrm{kg}\cdot\left(3\cdot10^8\,\mathrm{\frac{m}{s}}\right)^2</math><br />
::::<math>\approx\,2.79\cdot 10^{-12} \,\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}</math><br />
::::<math>\approx \,17.3\,\mathrm{MeV}</math><br />
<br />
Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:<br />
<br />
==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==<br />
<br />
For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc&sup2;. (The equation applies to '''all''' interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc&sup2; applies only to nuclear interactions.)<br />
<br />
The [[Theory of Relativity]] played no role in this work, but proponents later tried to retrofit the theory to the data in order to explain the explain the observed mass changes.<ref>Actually, the formula E=mc<sup>2</sup> was published in 1905, and has not changed since then. Fission of Uranium was discovered in 1938. It is not possible that the equation was retrofitted to explain this discovery.</ref> Here is the most famous example of the mass change.<br />
<br />
Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by [[Otto Hahn]] and [[Fritz Strassman]], and analyzed by [[Lise Meitner]], in 1938.<br />
<br />
There are a great number of decay paths of [[Uranium]] fission that figured in this experiment. The result element that most caught their attention was [[Barium]], because it was chemically related to the Radium that they were expecting. One of the fission paths may have been this:<br />
<br />
:<sup>235</sup>U &rarr; <sup>140</sup>Xe + <sup>91</sup>Sr + 4n<br />
<br />
(The [[Xenon]] decayed within about a minute to <sup>140</sup>Ba. They were searching for the chemical signature of Barium.)<br />
<br />
The masses of the particles are:<br />
<br />
{| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; border=&quot;1&quot; cellpadding=&quot;8&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; <br />
! Substance<br />
! <sup>235</sup>U<br />
! <sup>140</sup>Xe<br />
! <sup>91</sup>Sr<br />
! 4 neutrons<br />
|-<br />
| Number of protons<br />
| 92<br />
| 54<br />
| 38<br />
| 0<br />
|-<br />
| Number of neutrons<br />
| 235<br />
| 140<br />
| 91<br />
| 4<br />
|-<br />
| Number of electrons<br />
| 92<br />
| 54<br />
| 38<br />
| 0<br />
|-<br />
| Mass<br />
| 235.04393<br />
| 139.92164<br />
| 90.910203<br />
| 4.03466<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The mass of the Uranium atom is 235.04393, and the sum of the masses of the products is 234.866503. The difference is .177427 amu, or, using the E=mc&sup2; equation, 165 million electron volts. (The generally accepted value for the total energy released by Uranium fission, including secondary decays, is about 200 million electron volts.)<br />
<br />
The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate &quot;mass defect&quot; quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc&sup2; equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.<br />
<br />
==A Topical Example: Speed of Extremely Energetic Neutrinos==<br />
Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. In 2011 there were [http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos?newsfeed=true reports] that high-energy neutrinos had been observed traveling at a speed faster than the speed of light in an experiment at the Gran Sasso laboratory in Italy. Specifically, they seemed to have arrived at the detector 60 nanoseconds faster than light would have. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel ''at'' the speed of light. <br />
<br />
The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10<sup>−36</sup>kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc<sup>2</sup>. If we don't accept that, we have to do the calculations under classical physics, using SI (meter/kilogram/second) units.) The neutrinos were accelerated to an energy of about 17GeV, or .27x10<sup>−8</sup>Joules. If one did not accept relativity and had to use classical physics and the classical formula <math>\mathrm{E} = \frac{1}{2}mv^2</math>, one would get v=110x10<sup>12</sup> meters per second. This is about 370,000 times the speed of light, something that scientists would certainly have noticed. In fact, with special relativity, the speed is just under the speed of light, such that the neutrinos should be received at the detector about .26x10<sup>−24</sup> seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is far too small to measure&mdash;15 orders of magnitude smaller than the resolution of the GPS signals in the experiment.<br />
<br />
Later [http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/02/official-word-superluminal-neutrinos-leaves-warp-drive-fans-shred-hope%E2%80%94barely?ref=hp reports] started to resolve the mystery, and it is now accepted that the neutrinos behaved properly. But a BBC reporter made the incorrect statement that [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682 the neutrinos travelled at precisely light speed]. This was a simple misstatement, by .26 yoctoseconds.<br />
<br />
The issue was discussed at length at Conservapedia.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#Faster_than_light_neutrinos</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#The_final_nail_in_the_coffin_of_relativity.3F</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#Another_Blow_to_Relativity</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/109#Neutrinos_now_obey_speed_limit</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/111#Neutrinos</ref><br />
<br />
==Deducing the Equation From Empirical Observation==<br />
<br />
While the equation was historically developed on theoretical grounds as an inevitable consequence of special relativity, it is possible to deduce it purely from empirical observation.<br />
<br />
So, for the purposes of this section, imagine that one is in the era of "classical physics"; prior to 1900 or so. Relativity has not been invented, but, inexplicably, nuclear physics has. Imagine that the phenomena of radioactivity and nuclear fission have been observed, without any knowledge of relativity.<br />
<br />
A well-accepted physical law of classical physics was the law of conservation of mass. This was not easy to deduce. It required careful analysis of such phenomena as combustion, in the 1700s, to eliminate the various confounding sub-phenomena that made the law difficult to see. But, by 1900, the law was well established:<br />
<br />
:::*'''In all interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''<br />
<br />
For example, the mass of a TNT molecule is 227.1311 Daltons, or 227.1311 g/mol, which is, for all practical purposes, the same as the mass of its constituent Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen atoms. It is essentially impossible to measure the difference. The principle of conservation of mass is upheld.<br />
<br />
But when nuclear phenomena are discovered, we notice something different. The masses of the result particles after an event (e.g. alpha decay, nuclear fission, or artificial transmutation) is measurably less than the masses of the original particle(s). With the invention of the mass spectrometer around 1920, it became possible to measure atomic weights of various isotopes with great precision.<br />
<br />
Radium-226 decays into Radon-222 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 4.78 MeV.<br />
<br />
1&nbsp;kg of Radium-226 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{226.0254}</math> atoms. (The numerator is [[Avogadro's number]], and the denominator is the atomic weight of Radium-226.) This is 2.6643647 * 10<sup>24</sup> atoms.<br />
<br />
That number of Radon-222 atoms has mass .98226836&nbsp;kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01770863&nbsp;kg.<br />
The mass lost is .00002301&nbsp;kg.<br />
<br />
Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 4.78 MeV, or 4.78 * .1602 * 10<sup>−18</sup> Joules. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1&nbsp;kg of radium is 2.04 * 10<sup>12</sup> Joules.<br />
<br />
<br />
Also, Radon-222 decays into Polonium-218 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 5.49 MeV.<br />
<br />
1&nbsp;kg of Radon-222 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{222.0176}</math> atoms. This is 2.7124611 * 10<sup>24</sup> atoms.<br />
<br />
That number of Polonium-218 atoms has mass .98194467&nbsp;kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01802830&nbsp;kg.<br />
<br />
The mass lost is .00002703&nbsp;kg.<br />
<br />
Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 5.49 MeV. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1&nbsp;kg of polonium is 2.39 * 10<sup>12</sup> Joules.<br />
<br />
It looks as thought we have to rewrite the law of conservation of mass:<br />
<br />
:::*'''In all "ordinary" interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''<br />
:::*'''In nuclear interactions, there is a small but measurable loss of mass.'''<br />
<br />
:By the way, we can clearly see that atomic weights of pure isotopes are not integers, and that it has something to do with the energy released by nuclear disintegration. In retrospect, the formula E=mc&sup2; explains the non-integer character of atomic weights.<br />
<br />
Making special cases like this is unsatisfactory, of course.<br />
<br />
We do this for a few other interactions, including the explosion of TNT. This would include the Lithium-plus-Hydrogen and Uranium fission phenomena described above. We won't bother with the details. As observational scientists, we look for patterns in the behavior of nature. We make a table:<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" <br />
! interaction<br />
! energy released per kg, Joules<br />
! mass lost per kg of original substance, kg<br />
|-<br />
| explosion of TNT<br />
| 4.184 * 10<sup>6</sup><br />
| seems to be zero<br />
|-<br />
| alpha decay of Ra-226<br />
| 2.04 * 10<sup>12</sup><br />
| .00002301&nbsp;kg<br />
|-<br />
| alpha decay of Rn-222<br />
| 2.39 * 10<sup>12</sup><br />
| .00002703&nbsp;kg<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
We plot these, and a few others, not shown, on graph paper, and find to our amazement that the relationship is linear.<br />
<br />
For Ra, m/E = .112794118 E-16<br />
For Po, m/E = .113096234 E-16<br />
<br />
If this is linear, the mass defect for TNT would have been .47 * 10<sup>−10</sup>. We couldn't possibly have measured this.<br />
<br />
So we can rewrite the rule for conservation of mass in a more satisfactory way:<br />
<br />
:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to about .113 * 10<sup>-16</sup> kg per Joule of energy released.'''<br />
<br />
What we thought was exact conservation is just very nearly exact, and we hadn't been able to measure it before.<br />
<br />
But maybe there's more. This constant has dimensions of kilograms per Joule. From high-school physics, we know that that is seconds squared divided by meters squared. That is, it is the reciprocal of the square of a velocity. We calculate that velocity. It is about 2.97 * 10<sup>8</sup> meters per second. Very close to the speed of light! Very interesting! (The calculations above were not extremely precise. The formula has been verified with great precision, but not here.)<br />
<br />
We don't understand why (that will have to wait for the invention of relativity), but we can formulate a hypothesis:<br />
<br />
:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to <math>\frac{1}{c^2}</math> times the amount of energy released.'''<br />
<br />
We don't have to give the units any more, since everything is now dimensionally correct.<br />
<br />
::There is a very interesting analogy with the discovery of [[Maxwell's Equations]]. Maxwell found an interesting relationship involving the fundamental constants <math>\epsilon\,</math> and <math>\mu\,</math> appearing in his equations. Specifically, <math>\epsilon\mu\,</math> has the dimensions of seconds squared divided by meters squared, and that:<br />
<br />
:::::<math>\frac{1}{\epsilon\mu} = c^2</math><br />
<br />
::where "c" was the known velocity of light. He also showed that his equations predict electromagnetic waves, propagating at that speed.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Attempts to prove E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]]<br />
*[[E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /><br />
[[Category:Relativity]]<br />
[[Category:Laws of Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Physics]]</div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pioneer_anomaly&diff=1446556Pioneer anomaly2018-09-09T17:58:48Z<p>SamHB: /* Explanations */ A little less prominence for that explanation.</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Dn11304-1 600.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Trajectories of the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft. (The Pioneer anomaly is much too small to be noticeable at this scale.)]]<br />
The '''Pioneer anomaly''' refers to deviations from projected courses for several spacecraft sent to the outer solar system. The data sent back from both Pioneer spacecraft, Galileo, and Ulysses, represent one of the first meaningful tests of the precision of gravitation predictions over long distances. The spacecraft have deviated from the courses which scientists predicted using [[general relativity]], as well as [[Law of Universal Gravitation|Newtonian mechanics]], indicating that both theories may be fundamentally flawed.<br />
<br />
==Discovery==<br />
[[Pioneer 10]] and [[Pioneer 11]] were space probes sent to study the planets [[Jupiter]] and [[Saturn]]. After following a [[hyperbolic]] trajectory around these planets, they had reached [[escape velocity]] for the solar system and were flying out. While their main mission was now ended, NASA stayed in radio contact with the craft to study the outskirts of the solar system.<ref name="Nieto">Michael Martin Nieto and John D Anderson. "[http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/22/24/008 Using Early Data to Illuminate the Pioneer Anomaly]". ''Classical and Quantum Gravity'', 2005</ref><br />
<br />
Around the time of Pioneer 11's flyby of Saturn, it was found to be slightly off-course. (Every spacecraft sent to the outer solar system is intended to follow a specific course, predicted by the theory of [[general relativity]]. Radio transmissions and radar are used to track spacecraft to ensure that they stay on course.) While this in itself was within the range of error, astronomers continued tracking the craft to find that the anomalous sunward acceleration increased. Currently, [[Pioneer 10]] and [[Pioneer 11]] are respectively over 30 and 70 [[Astronomical unit|AU]] from the sun, the farthest any spacecraft has gone in near-free-fall. By using [[Doppler effect|Doppler radar]], scientists have found that the courses for both the Pioneer spacecraft show a constant acceleration towards the sun of <math>8.74 \times 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s^2} \ </math> beyond theoretical preditions.<ref name="Nieto" /><br />
<br />
Although the [[Galileo Project|Galileo]] and Ulysses spacecraft showed some unexpected sunward acceleration, other unpredictable factors, such as the [[Yarkovsky effect]] and the thrust caused by radioactive material on board, prohibit any accurate measurement of the effect on these two spacecraft. The confounding effects are even more significant on the Voyager spacecraft, preventing even a discussion of whether the Pioneer Anomaly affects these craft at all.<br />
<br />
The Pioneer anomaly is about 1000 times bigger than the two effects contributing to the difference between the acceleration predicted by general relativity and that predicted by classical (Newtonian) gravity. The effect of the increase in inertia due to the Lorentz transform is less than <math>10^{-12}\, \mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s^2} \ </math>, and the difference in acceleration due to the Schwarzschild metric is also less than <math>10^{-12}\, \mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s^2} \ </math>.<br />
<br />
==Explanations==<br />
Originally, scientists supposed that the Pioneer navigation code was in error. However, the code was verified by an independent team. After a rigorous search for all possible effects, the anomaly was determined to be real: the course actually does diverge from models.<ref name="Nieto" /><br />
<br />
Several possible explanations, some flawed, have been proposed for this effect:<br />
<br />
In 2010, [[Creation science|creation scientist]] Dr. D. Russell Humphreys weighed in with a religious explanation:<br />
:The only non-standard assumption I used was that the matter of the cosmos is limited in extent, with a fair amount of empty space beyond the matter—an assumption supported by the [[Bible]]. With those relatively modest beginnings, I was able to explain the Pioneer anomaly — it’s due to a change in the ‘fabric’ of space. In fact, this anomaly could be the first local manifestation we have observed of the expansion of the cosmos, and the first evidence that expansion is occurring in the present, not just the past.<br />
<br />
:The assumption I used violently contradicts the foundational assumption of the [[Big Bang theory|big bang]], which says the universe has no centre and no edge. In that model, the fabric of space would not change. Consequently, the big bang model has been unable to explain the anomalous Pioneer acceleration.<ref>[http://creation.com/pioneer-anomaly Pioneer anomaly]</ref><br />
<br />
Other explanations offered:<br />
<br />
* The anomalous acceleration could be due to the spacecraft venting energy in certain directions.<ref>http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2008/04/13/pioneer-spacecraft-a-step-closer-to-being-boring/</ref> However, such effects would be expected to be more significant earlier on, when the power sources were less degraded.<ref name="Nieto" /> The opposite was actually the case.<br />
* Drag forces from the particles in space, analogous to air resistance, could be slowing the spacecraft down. While the average concentration of the particles is not high enough to produce the observed acceleration, the Pioneer spacecraft could conceivably have picked up an electric charge which could be attracting the particles.<ref>William F. Hall. "[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2007.01.006 Can charge drag explain the Pioneer anomaly?]" ''Physics Letters B'', 1 March 2007</ref><br />
* The theory of [[General Relativity]] and the [[Law of Universal Gravitation]] could be wrong; the gravitational force could be slightly stronger than predicted. In this context, it is important to note that other spacecraft flying in hyperbolic trajectories around celestial bodies have also experienced anomalous gravitational effects.<br />
* There could be gravitational forces from other celestial bodies that have not been taken into account.<br />
* A Sept. 2011 paper claims that the anomaly has been shrinking, but is still a mystery.[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6047/1208.short]<br />
<br />
The generally accepted explanation, published in March 2011, is that the anomaly is caused by 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><br />
<br />
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><br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
*[http://creation.com/pioneer-anomaly Pioneer anomaly] by [[Creation Ministries International]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist}}<br />
<br />
{{Relativity}}</div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pioneer_anomaly&diff=1446554Pioneer anomaly2018-09-09T17:56:00Z<p>SamHB: /* Explanations */ Better explanation of the thermal reflection.</p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Dn11304-1 600.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Trajectories of the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft. (The Pioneer anomaly is much too small to be noticeable at this scale.)]]<br />
The '''Pioneer anomaly''' refers to deviations from projected courses for several spacecraft sent to the outer solar system. The data sent back from both Pioneer spacecraft, Galileo, and Ulysses, represent one of the first meaningful tests of the precision of gravitation predictions over long distances. The spacecraft have deviated from the courses which scientists predicted using [[general relativity]], as well as [[Law of Universal Gravitation|Newtonian mechanics]], indicating that both theories may be fundamentally flawed.<br />
<br />
==Discovery==<br />
[[Pioneer 10]] and [[Pioneer 11]] were space probes sent to study the planets [[Jupiter]] and [[Saturn]]. After following a [[hyperbolic]] trajectory around these planets, they had reached [[escape velocity]] for the solar system and were flying out. While their main mission was now ended, NASA stayed in radio contact with the craft to study the outskirts of the solar system.<ref name="Nieto">Michael Martin Nieto and John D Anderson. "[http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/22/24/008 Using Early Data to Illuminate the Pioneer Anomaly]". ''Classical and Quantum Gravity'', 2005</ref><br />
<br />
Around the time of Pioneer 11's flyby of Saturn, it was found to be slightly off-course. (Every spacecraft sent to the outer solar system is intended to follow a specific course, predicted by the theory of [[general relativity]]. Radio transmissions and radar are used to track spacecraft to ensure that they stay on course.) While this in itself was within the range of error, astronomers continued tracking the craft to find that the anomalous sunward acceleration increased. Currently, [[Pioneer 10]] and [[Pioneer 11]] are respectively over 30 and 70 [[Astronomical unit|AU]] from the sun, the farthest any spacecraft has gone in near-free-fall. By using [[Doppler effect|Doppler radar]], scientists have found that the courses for both the Pioneer spacecraft show a constant acceleration towards the sun of <math>8.74 \times 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s^2} \ </math> beyond theoretical preditions.<ref name="Nieto" /><br />
<br />
Although the [[Galileo Project|Galileo]] and Ulysses spacecraft showed some unexpected sunward acceleration, other unpredictable factors, such as the [[Yarkovsky effect]] and the thrust caused by radioactive material on board, prohibit any accurate measurement of the effect on these two spacecraft. The confounding effects are even more significant on the Voyager spacecraft, preventing even a discussion of whether the Pioneer Anomaly affects these craft at all.<br />
<br />
The Pioneer anomaly is about 1000 times bigger than the two effects contributing to the difference between the acceleration predicted by general relativity and that predicted by classical (Newtonian) gravity. The effect of the increase in inertia due to the Lorentz transform is less than <math>10^{-12}\, \mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s^2} \ </math>, and the difference in acceleration due to the Schwarzschild metric is also less than <math>10^{-12}\, \mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s^2} \ </math>.<br />
<br />
==Explanations==<br />
Originally, scientists supposed that the Pioneer navigation code was in error. However, the code was verified by an independent team. After a rigorous search for all possible effects, the anomaly was determined to be real: the course actually does diverge from models.<ref name="Nieto" /><br />
<br />
Several possible explanations, some flawed, have been proposed for this effect:<br />
<br />
In 2010, [[Creation science|creation scientist]] Dr. D. Russell Humphreys wrote regarding his explanation for the Pioneer anomaly:<br />
{{cquote|The only non-standard assumption I used was that the matter of the cosmos is limited in extent, with a fair amount of empty space beyond the matter—an assumption supported by the [[Bible]]. With those relatively modest beginnings, I was able to explain the Pioneer anomaly — it’s due to a change in the ‘fabric’ of space. In fact, this anomaly could be the first local manifestation we have observed of the expansion of the cosmos, and the first evidence that expansion is occurring in the present, not just the past.<br />
<br />
The assumption I used violently contradicts the foundational assumption of the [[Big Bang theory|big bang]], which says the universe has no centre and no edge. In that model, the fabric of space would not change. Consequently, the big bang model has been unable to explain the anomalous Pioneer acceleration.<ref>[http://creation.com/pioneer-anomaly Pioneer anomaly]</ref>}} <br />
<br />
Other explanations offered:<br />
<br />
* The anomalous acceleration could be due to the spacecraft venting energy in certain directions.<ref>http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2008/04/13/pioneer-spacecraft-a-step-closer-to-being-boring/</ref> However, such effects would be expected to be more significant earlier on, when the power sources were less degraded.<ref name="Nieto" /> The opposite was actually the case.<br />
* Drag forces from the particles in space, analogous to air resistance, could be slowing the spacecraft down. While the average concentration of the particles is not high enough to produce the observed acceleration, the Pioneer spacecraft could conceivably have picked up an electric charge which could be attracting the particles.<ref>William F. Hall. "[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2007.01.006 Can charge drag explain the Pioneer anomaly?]" ''Physics Letters B'', 1 March 2007</ref><br />
* The theory of [[General Relativity]] and the [[Law of Universal Gravitation]] could be wrong; the gravitational force could be slightly stronger than predicted. In this context, it is important to note that other spacecraft flying in hyperbolic trajectories around celestial bodies have also experienced anomalous gravitational effects.<br />
* There could be gravitational forces from other celestial bodies that have not been taken into account.<br />
* A Sept. 2011 paper claims that the anomaly has been shrinking, but is still a mystery.[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6047/1208.short]<br />
<br />
The generally accepted explanation, published in March 2011, is that the anomaly is caused by 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><br />
<br />
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><br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
*[http://creation.com/pioneer-anomaly Pioneer anomaly] by [[Creation Ministries International]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist}}<br />
<br />
{{Relativity}}</div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=1446548Theory of relativity2018-09-09T17:41:13Z<p>SamHB: /* Mass increase */ Better to call it "apparent". The notion that the mass actually increases is obsolete.</p>
<hr />
<div>''See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].''<br />
<br />
In physics, the '''theory of relativity''' is a scientific theory describing the effects due to the invariance of the speed of light. In particular, the meaning of space and time are altered by the motion of the observer. Relativity proposes time dilation and length contraction for observers moving relative to one another at very high ("relativistic") speeds.<br />
<br />
'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related mathematical theories in [[physics]]:<br />
[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|<br />
*"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>]]<br />
*'''[[Special theory of relativity|Special relativity]]''' (SR) is a theory to describe 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 put forward by [[Albert Einstein]]; its mathematical framework was independently developed and formalized 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><br />
<br />
*'''[[General theory of relativity|General Relativity]]''' (GR) is a theory to explain the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was originally developed by Einstein, with help from [[David Hilbert]] in its final mathematical formulation, as a generalization of the postulates of Special Relativity to account for non-inertial, accelerating observers, particularly those in a gravitational field.<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<ref>Stephen Hawking, ''Brief History of Time'' ("Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get."). Hawking was being kind. In fact, Eddington excluded data that did not fit his preconceived view. Further discrediting of Eddington's study was published by Earman, J., Glymour, C., Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci. 11, 49-85 (1980), and Collins, H. M., Pinch, T., The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science. Cambridge University Press (1993) (as cited in [http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070907/full/news070903-20.html#B2])</ref> claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 popularized the theory.<br />
<br />
These theories have augmented earlier approaches, such as [[Galilean Relativity]].<br />
<br />
The theory of relativity is defended with religious-like zeal, such that no college faculty tenure, Ph.D degree, or Nobel Prize is ever awarded to anyone who dares criticize the theory, as the example of denying a Nobel Prize to the most accomplished physicist of the 20th century, [[Robert Dicke]], illustrates. Other critics of the theory are [[Nikola Tesla]], who called it a "...magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists..."<ref>[http://www.plasmacosmology.net/tesla.html New York Times, July 11, 1935, p23, c8]</ref> and Louis Essen [1908-1997], the man credited with determining the speed of light. He wrote many fiery papers against it such as ''Relativity and Time Signals''<ref>http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3297</ref> and ''Relativity - Joke or Swindle?''.<ref>http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm</ref> Perhaps the most famous website opposing relativity is this one, with its [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. The cornerstone item in that page involves the experimental measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury that show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.<br />
<br />
The theory 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><br />
<br />
The theory 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> Special relativity assumes that all observers in inertial frames of reference will measure the same value for the speed of light, '''c''' and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent. These hypotheses that can never be fully tested. Relativity rejects Newton's [[action at a distance]], which is basic to Newtonian gravity and also found to be a consequence of [[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, since quantum effects would not be negligible (in the same way non-relativistic quantum mechanics is not valid when dealing with particles traveling near the speed of light). <br />
<br />
The "continuous" nature of space and time postulated by relativity is in conflict with the "discrete" nature in [[quantum mechanics]],<ref>For example, Relativity claims that space and time are smooth and continuous, while [[quantum mechanics]] suggests otherwise. [http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out.] Relativity also denies [[action-at-a-distance]], while quantum mechanics suggests otherwise. Relativity denies any role for chance, while quantum mechanics is heavily dependent on it.</ref> 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.<br />
<br />
Unlike [[Classical mechanics|Newtonian 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 (x<sup>2</sup> - c<sup>2</sup> t<sup>2</sup>). The instantaneous transmission of Newtonian gravitational effects also contradicts relativity.<br />
<br />
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]].<br />
<br />
== Special Relativity ==<br />
Lorentz and Poincaré 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 Poincaré's theory<ref>http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"</ref> in terms of two assumptions (postulates):<br />
<br />
# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''<br />
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''<br />
<br />
In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:<br />
# 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><br />
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.<br />
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).<br />
<br />
Or, in more concise, clearer terms, these assumptions are this:<br />
<br />
#there is no [[action at a distance]] (because that would make observations dependent on the frame of reference)<br />
#space and time are completely symmetric throughout the universe (because otherwise frames of reference would not be interchangeable)<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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 Earth's orbital motion through the [[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.)<br />
<br />
At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Lorentz-Poincaré relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The media-promoted equation ''[[E=mc²]]'', implausibly suggests a relationship between typically unrelated concepts of energy, the rest mass of a body and the speed of light.<br />
<br />
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 of 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).<br />
<br />
Many scientists have indicated problems with the postulates of special relativity. Paul Davies, formerly of Macquarie University and now at the University of Arizona believes that the speed of light has changed over time. Since the speed of light is a constant speed 'c' this indicates problems with the theory [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2181455.stm light speed]. Other engineers and scientists have written about problems in the basic set of special relativity equations. Based on the ideas of not Einstein but of the scientist Fitzgerald as well as others, a length contraction effect was predicted as an explanation of the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect Earth's orbital motion. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss, a computer engineer, invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20120303075834/http://www.relativitycollapse.com/ Ad for the book ''The Collapse of Special Relativity</ref><br />
<br />
== General Relativity ==<br />
<br />
::::''See the [[General theory of relativity]] page for more in-depth coverage of this topic.''<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The anomalous precession of Mercury's [[perihelion]] seems to support the Theory of General Relativity, though that is disputed on the[[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. Keep in mind that the precession in question is the ''"anomalous"''<br />
precession after the effects of other planets' gravitation action has been compensated for. Those other effects are much larger, and are purely Newtonian in nature. There was another explanation based on Newtonian gravity, involving a slight alteration to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, but it was discarded when it gave very bad results for the Moon's orbit.<br />
<br />
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>[[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.<br />
<br />
::''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><br />
<br />
The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
==Lack of evidence for Relativity==<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Claims that relativity was used to develop the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) are false. A 1996 article explains:<br />
<br />
:"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><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. While Van Flandern believed that relativity is unnecessary for GPS, he also asserted that observations of GPS satellites supported both general and special relativity, writing that "we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days," with unrelated factors interfering with longer-term observations.<ref>http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp</ref><br />
<br />
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, likely because in Newtonian Mechanics every clock in the universe keeps time at the same rate regardless of velocity, acceleration, or the presence or absence of force.<br />
<br />
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><br />
<br />
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, but only if we treat light as capable of being accelerated and decelerated like ordinary matter, which is contrary to all measurements and observations to date.<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. <br />
<br />
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 so long as they do not undergo accelerations near the speed of light or enter any massive gravity wells.<ref>There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe.</ref><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. While general relativity was developed on purely theoretical grounds, it was soon discovered that it explained these precession observations.<ref>http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000</ref><ref>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node117.html</ref> Newton's theory can also explain the Mercury precession by making tiny adjustments to parameters in the gravitational equation, but doing so would give the same precession for all orbiting bodies everywhere, a phenomenon which is not observed.<br />
<br />
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 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><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity==<br />
<br />
Predictions of general relativity turn out to be obscure and difficult to test. The two most famous predictions were the bending of light in a gravitational field and the precession of the perihelia of orbiting planets.<br />
<br />
*The first of these was famously tested during a total eclipse in 1919. That test was somewhat muddled by an incorrect initial calculation, by several people including Einstein himself, of what the effect would be, and some "cherry picking" of the data to be used.<ref>''Einstein's Luck'', John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9</ref> The data selection could be considered "manipulation" or "fudging", by a person (Arthur Eddington) who had a personal stake in the outcome. His analysis techniques would not pass muster today. The announcement of this test, flawed though it was, made Einstein world-famous.<ref>[http://einstein.stanford.edu/Library/images/lightsAllAskewBig.jpg The New York Times, Nov. 10, 1919]</ref><ref>[https://www.worldbooklearning.com/how-did-an-eclipse-help-make-albert-einstein-famous/ How did an eclipse help make Albert Einstein famous]</ref><ref>[https://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post/44934715350/how-albert-einstein-became-a-celebrity How Albert Einstein became a celebrity]</ref><ref>[https://www.sciencealert.com/general-relativity-experiment-confirms-accuracy-for-galaxies "The public's mind was blown by the results, effectively turning Albert Einstein into a household name and cementing the concept of general relativity into physics books."]</ref><br />
<br />
:It should be noted that pre-relativistic (Newtonian) physics may also predict a bending, of half the observed value, depending on whether one uses the 17th century "corpuscular" formulation or the 19th century "wave" formulation.<br />
<br />
:Relying on the usual assumptions&mdash;Newtonian mechanics, Galilean relativity, conservation of energy and momentum, the universality of the speed of light (that is, special relativity), the Equivalence Principle, and the geodesic equation in empty space (that is, general relativity), and the proper calibration of the instruments, observations of later eclipses, and the observations of quasar 3C273, confirm predictions of the theory.<br />
<br />
:No [[Nobel Prize]] was was awarded for this. A few years later Einstein won the Nobel Prize for the (unrelated) [[Photoelectric effect]].<br />
<br />
*The second "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.<br />
<br />
:No Nobel Prize was was awarded for this.<br />
<br />
==Experimental and Observational Evidence Confirming Relativity==<br />
<br />
The different effects predicted by special relativity, compared to classical formulations, are extremely tiny. Most relativistic effects are negligible at the speeds of ordinary phenomena observed by humans. The effects only become significant when the speeds involved are a significant fraction of the speed of light, which is <math>3 \times 10^8</math> meters per second&mdash;such speeds are called ''relativistic''. (However, it's worth noting that ordinary magnetism can be considered an effect of relativity, dictated by the need for electrostatic theory to be correct under relativity. The speed of light in fact appears in the formulas ([[Maxwell's Equations]]) governing electricity and magnetism, though these equations were developed long before relativity was proposed.)<br />
<br />
Because the effects of relativity are so tiny, scientists have been devising sophisticated and sensitive tests ever since the theory was formulated in 1905.<br />
<br />
It is important to be aware that it is fairly rare for an experiment to '''prove''' a theory. In general, 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 a theory, it lends credence to that theory. When no other plausible theory can explain 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 was at one time another competing theory&mdash;the Newcomb-Hall exponent-fudging theory. That one didn't hold up for things other than Mercury. No other theory has come up explaining the phenomenon; GR has withstood the test of time. That goes a long way toward validating GR. There are many other observations and experiments, covering a wide variety of phenomena, described below&mdash;bending of light, gravitational time dilation, gravitational waves, geodetic precession, Shapiro effect, etc. It is these widely disparate observations, and the lack of any alternative theories explaining any of them, that lead people to say that GR is "experimentally validated".<br />
<br />
There's also the matter of simply "accepting" something, when a phenomenon is consistent with a theory that is already known to be valid. The recoil from a gun is an example of this. Everyone knows that there is a backward recoil when a gun is fired. This is explained to people when they are first being taught how to use a gun, and they get used to it with practice. The reason for the recoil is that it is an obvious consequence of Newtons' laws of motion. But people don't specifically think about Newton's laws, or consider this to be a "proof", when they are firing a gun. They just accept that the recoil is a known consequence of those laws. Newton's laws of motion have been validated through thousands of experiments much more focused than the firing of a gun. The [[Cockcroft and Walton Experiment|Cockcroft/Walton experiment]] is another example of this kind of acceptance. The results are consistent (to within 5% when analyzed carefully) with Special Relativity, and many people consider it to be a validation of SR. But there were too many other things going on, such as the use of the newly-invented particle accelerator, to make it a definitive test. In any case, Special Relativity had already been validated through more focused and definitive tests.<br />
<br />
While the experimental tests for General Relativity are rather esoteric, those for Special Relativity are fairly straightforward. So much so that the Michelson-Morley experiment could be said to have single-handedly established the case for SR&mdash;the logical syllogism leading from Michelson-Morley to SR and the Lorentz transform was fairly clear once people saw it.<br />
<br />
When analyzing an experiment to see whether it validates a theory, one must be careful not to assume the theory in one's reasoning. For establishing Special Relativity with the Michelson-Morley experiment, the assumptions are:<br />
<br />
#Newtonian and Galilean mechanics.<br />
#Galilean relativity, that is, the notion that there is no absolute frame of reference.<br />
#The universality of the speed of light.<br />
#And, of course, proper calibration of the equipment.<br />
#:The third one was the observation that Michelson and Morley made.<br />
#:<br />
#:<br />
#:For the derivation of E=mc², these assumptions are added:<br />
#:<br />
#Conservation of energy.<br />
#Conservation of momentum.<br />
#:All of the assumptions listed above constitute SR.<br />
#:<br />
#:It would be nearly inconceivable to derive GR without SR. Gravitational time dilation, for example, requires a lot of information coming from SR. <br />
#:So, for the experiments listed below for GR, the assumptions are the 6 above plus:<br />
#The Equivalence Principle.<br />
#:So the experiments below for GR are really just establishing that the Equivalence Principle is valid, and that GR follows logically from that.<br />
<br />
The most famous experiment, and the one that is commonly cited in textbooks as the experiment that established the case for relativity,<ref>Though relativity did not actually originate from this experiment</ref> was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]]. This showed that all observers will obtain the same measured value for the speed of light (3x10<sup>8</sup> meters per second) no matter what their state of motion. This is the first of the two fundamental principles:<br />
#''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''<br />
#''The laws of physics are identical in all reference frames.''<br />
(The second is just a restatement of Galilean relativity, that is, the "common sense" that had been accepted for centuries.)<br />
A naive "common sense" interpretation of Galilean relativity would require that measurements of the speed of light (or anything else) by different observers would get results that differ by the observers' relative speeds, and hence that principle #1 can't be true. Special relativity fixes this apparent paradox.<br />
<br />
All of special relativity derives for these two principles, plus assumptions of exact conservation of momentum and energy in all cases.<br />
<br />
*At the end of Einstein's original 1905 paper on the subject<ref>http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?"</ref>, he speculates on the possibility that the equation <math>E = m c^2</math>, which would normally be very hard to verify, could be verified with the extremely high energies of the newly discovered phenomenon of radioactivity.<ref>This equation is not related to [[quantum mechanics]].</ref> In the 1910s, with the invention of the mass spectrometer, it became possible to measure masses of nuclei accurately. This led to the clearing up of the mystery of atomic masses not being exact integers,and strongly suggested the existence of a "mass defect" (or "packing fraction") consistent with the mass-energy equivalence. In the 1930s, experiments with known nuclear reactions showed a very accurate correlation between the masses of the nuclei involved and the energy released. See [[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]].<br />
<br />
*Another prediction of special relativity was time dilation in rapidly moving objects. This effect was most famously verified in the anomalously slow decay of relativistic cosmic muons.<ref>Some have suggested that other explanations are possible for this effect. We are trying to track this down.</ref> Time dilation has since been verified many times, and is routinely taken into account in all high-energy nuclear physics experiments, as in Hadron collision experiments.<ref>Experiments specifically designed to check dilation are rarely conducted any more.</ref><br />
<br />
As the 20th century progressed, tests of general relativity were proposed.<br />
<br />
*One important "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.<br />
<br />
:This created quite a problem&mdash;physicists by then were accustomed to having their theories check out very accurately. One proposal that was made, by Simon Newcomb and Asaph Hall, was that the exponent of the radius in the gravitational formula wasn't exactly 2. He showed that, by choosing an exponent of <math>2+\delta</math>, the precession, as a fraction of a full orbit per planet's year, is <math>\delta/2</math>. By setting <math>\delta</math> to .000000157, that is, an exponent of 2.000000157, Newcomb was able to get a precession of .000000078 revolutions per Mercury year, or 43 arcseconds per Earth year. Whatever value is chosen for <math>\delta\,</math>, it gives the same precession, per revolution, for all orbiting bodies, but gravitational effects from other planets diminish that effect the further the planet is from the sun.<br />
<br />
:The approximation given at the end of Einstein's 1916 paper <ref>http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_GRelativity_1916.pdf "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity"</ref> is <math>24 \pi^3\frac{a^2}{T^2c^2 (1-e^2)}</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where a is the semi-major axis, T is the length of the planet's year, and e is the eccentricity. A much simpler, but less accurate, approximation, designed to show how the precession relates to the planet's speed, is <math>3{}v^2/c^2</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where <math>v</math> is the planet's average orbital speed. These are just approximations. Getting an accurate value requires integrating the geodesic equation where Ricci's tensor is zero.<br />
<br />
:While Newcomb's theory, and general relativity, don't lead to closed-form solutions, both theories can be solved numerically to as much precision as one desires.<br />
<br />
:The following table shows some approximate parameters for the planets. Note that Mercury has the smallest orbit, and the fastest speed. Precession of planets other than Mercury is extremely hard to measure, but measurements of the actual anomalous precessions are in good agreement.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref><br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Planet<br />
!Period, seconds x 10<sup>6</sup><br />
!Semimajor axis, meters x 10<sup>9</sup><br />
!Speed, meters/second x 10<sup>3</sup><br />
!Gravitational force, Newtons per kilogram<br />
!Anomalous precession, arcseconds per (Earth) century, pure Newtonian mechanics<br />
!Anomalous precession, Newtonian with exponent of 2.000000157<br />
!Anomalous precession, general relativity<br />
!Measured anomalous precession (estimated uncertainty)<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref><br />
|-<br />
|Mercury<br />
|7.57<br />
|58.9<br />
|48<br />
|.039<br />
|0<br />
|43<br />
|43<br />
|43.5(5)<br />
|-<br />
|Venus<br />
|19.6<br />
|108<br />
|35<br />
|.011<br />
|0<br />
|16.6<br />
|9<br />
|8(5)<br />
|-<br />
|Earth<br />
|31.6<br />
|150<br />
|30<br />
|.006<br />
|0<br />
|10.3<br />
|4<br />
|5(1)<br />
|-<br />
|Mars<br />
|59.3<br />
|227.9<br />
|24<br />
|.0025<br />
|0<br />
|5.5<br />
|1.4<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Jupiter<br />
|374<br />
|778.4<br />
|13<br />
|.0002<br />
|0<br />
|0.87<br />
|0.07<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Saturn<br />
|929<br />
|1426<br />
|9.7<br />
|.00006<br />
|0<br />
|0.35<br />
|0.014<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Uranus<br />
|2651<br />
|2870<br />
|6.8<br />
|.000016<br />
|0<br />
|0.12<br />
|0.002<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Neptune<br />
|5200<br />
|4498<br />
|5.5<br />
|.000007<br />
|0<br />
|0.063<br />
|0.0008<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
: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, and using very accurate calculations rather than the approximations given above, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values, as of 2008, are:<br />
::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)<br />
::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)<br />
::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)<br />
::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992) <br />
::: (Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijpers 2008])<br />
:These error bars, and that of the general relativity prediction, all overlap.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|The Shapiro effect: A spacecraft signal dipping into a gravity well around the [[Sun]] is delayed slightly.]]<br />
<br />
*Another is the ''Shapiro effect'', involving time delay in radio signals passing through the gravity well of the Sun or a planet. Various spacecraft have confirmed this.<br />
<br />
*Another is ''gravitational time dilation''. This is an effect separate from the time dilation of special relativity. It was tested by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959. No Nobel Prize was awarded for this. Professor Pound had previously shared in the 1952 Nobel for his contributions to Nuclear Magnetic Resonance imaging.<br />
<br />
*Later in the 20th century, even more subtle phenomena were tested. One was the phenomenon of ''gravitational radiation'', or "gravitational waves". These waves are incredibly difficult to observe, and had never been observed until 2015. But extremely dense binary pulsars radiate gravitational waves with sufficient energy loss that, even though we can't detect the waves from Earth, we can see the effect of the energy loss from the radiation. The extreme precision of the timing of pulses from pulsars makes it possible to observe their energy loss with great accuracy. Observations by Hulse and Taylor of the pulsar pair known as B1913+16, found the energy loss to be consistent with the predicted radiation. This required choosing orbital parameters to be consistent with observation, in the same way that Kepler chose orbital parameters to fit observed planetary motion to his theory. The rotating pulsars have since moved such that Earth is now out of the beams. The assumptions required for this, in addition to those listed above, were that pulsars behave consistently. The 1993 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded for this.<br />
<br />
*In late 2015 (and announced in 2016), the LIGO instruments directly detected gravitational waves allegedly from colliding [[black hole]]s. See [[Gravitational waves]]. Unlike the waves from orbiting pulsars, that could only be detected by the loss of rotation energy, the waves from colliding black holes were strong enough to be detected directly. The assumptions required for this, in addition to those listed above, were that the objects emitting the radiation (generally believed to be black holes, of course) satisfy the Schwartzschild solution to relativistic mechanics. The 2017 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded for this.<br />
<br />
*In 2018 an observation of the 3-body system PSR J0337+1715, consisting of 2 white dwarfs and a pulsar, was consistent with (and hence tended to confirm) general relativity under conditions of extremely high gravity, to enormous precision. The assumptions made were the same as those listed above. One of the researchers stated "If there is a difference [between observation and the prediction of the Equivalence Principle], it is no more than three parts in a million."<ref>https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/einstein-s-theory-relativity-passes-its-toughest-test-yet-ncna889021</ref><br />
<br />
*In 2018, observations of a star orbiting the supermassive black hole "Sagittarius A*" at the center of our galaxy, showed that the light was stretched from the black hole's gravity just as relativity predicted. The star orbits Sagittarius A* at speeds of up to 16 million miles per hour. This was the first observation of such intense gravity.<ref>https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/einstein-s-theory-relativity-aces-its-first-black-hole-test-ncna896641</ref><br />
<br />
*An additional test of general relativity was performed with radio signals to the Cassini spacecraft.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/nature01997.html</ref><br />
<br />
*Two other effects, ''geodetic precession'' (also known as "de Sitter precession"), and ''frame dragging'' (also known as the "Lense-Thirring effect") were tested by the "Gravity Probe B" satellite early in the 21st century.<ref>http://prl.aps.org/accepted/L/ea070Y8dQ491d22a28828c95f660a57ac82e7d8c0</ref><ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306430</ref><ref>http://www.nap.edu/html/gpb/summary.html</ref><ref>http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/73870/title/Gravity_Probe_B_finally_pays_off_</ref><ref>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/</ref><ref>http://einstein.stanford.edu/</ref><ref>http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/the-gravity-probe-b-bailout</ref><ref>http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/06/nasa-concludes-gravity-probe-b-space-time-experiment-proves-e/</ref> The precision required to observe this was phenomenal. The results were announced on May 4, 2011.<br />
<br />
{{clear}}<!-- make the Shapiro picture not obliterate the next section heading --><br />
<br />
==Predicted consequences of the Theories==<br />
===Time dilation===<br />
<!-- NOTE [[Time dilation]] redirects to this section, so the section name should not be changed without amending that redirect. --><br />
[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]<br />
One important consequence of relativity is that an observer in one reference frame will not in general observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" at the same rate as one in the observer's own frame.<br />
<br />
In [[special relativity]], where acceleration and gravitational effects are ignored, this can be derived using basic geometry. The result is that clocks in all other [[inertial frames of reference]] other than the one you are in appear to tick slower. This can be summarised by the well known phrase "moving clocks run slow".<br />
<br />
However, with [[general relativity]], there are similar effects such as gravitational time dilation where a clockthat is higher in a gravitational field runs faster. Often the effects of relativity are negligible. However the high precision required for the [[GPS|GPS system]] needs relativistic corrections. The rest of this section will concern only [[special relativity]].<br />
<br />
The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:<br />
<br />
<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{u^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math> <br />
<br />
Where <br />
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.<br />
:<math>u</math> is the relative velocity between the [[inertial frame of reference|reference frames]].<br />
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x10<sup>8</sup> m s<sup>-1</sup>).<br />
<br />
Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying muon decay. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic particles]] with a short [[halflife]] of 1.53 microseconds. When produced by interactions of [[cosmic rays]] in the upper atmosphere, they have a speed around 0.994c. By putting muon detectors at the top (D<sub>1</sub>) and bottom (D<sub>2</sub>) of a mountain with a separation of 1900 m, 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The time taken for a muon to travel from D<sub>1</sub> to D<sub>2</sub> as measured by a stationary observer is:<br />
<br />
<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math><br />
<br />
The fraction of muons arriving at D<sub>2</sub> in comparison to D<sub>1</sub> was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)<br />
<br />
Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then<br />
<br />
<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math><br />
<br />
This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.<br />
<br />
Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:<br />
<br />
<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><br />
<br />
This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.<br />
<br />
Since either [[inertial frame of reference|reference frame]] is equally valid, from the [[muon]]'s point of view it sees the [[earth]] approach it at nearly the [[speed of light]]. Hence time passes faster for the muon (slower for an observer on the ground). This appears to be a contradiction. However, the [[muon]] sees the height of the mountain contracted and so travels a shorter distance in its own frame. See length contraction below.<br />
<br />
====Time Dilation and Creation Science====<br />
<br />
{{main|Starlight problem#Humphreys.27_model}}<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
====Derivation of Time Dilation====<br />
<br />
Time dilation is most easily derived using the [[Lorentz transformation]]s, though geometrical solution is also straight forward. Using the transformation relating [[time]] between two [[Inertial frame of reference|frames of reference]], <math>t</math> and <math>t'</math>. We can find the time difference between two events that occur at the '''same''' location in space. The events shall be called event one and event 2. This results in the equations:<br />
<br />
<math>t'_1 = \gamma \left(t_1 - \frac{ux}{c^2} \right) </math><br/><br />
<math>t'_2 = \gamma \left(t_2 - \frac{ux}{c^2} \right) </math><br />
<br />
where<br />
:<math>\gamma</math> is the [[Lorentz factor]]<br />
:<math>u</math> is the relative [[speed]] between [[Inertial frame of reference|reference frames]]<br />
:<math>c</math> is the [[speed of light]]<br />
<br />
Subtracting the top equation from the bottom produces the time between the events as measured in each reference frame, so:<br />
<br />
<math>t'_2 - t'_1 = \gamma (t_2 - t_1)</math><br />
<br />
This the equation for time dilation and is the same equation as earlier.<br />
<br />
===Length contraction===<br />
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 along the direction parallel to the relative motion.<br />
<br />
The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:<br />
<br />
<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{u^{2}}{c^{2}}} = \frac{l_0}{\gamma}</math><br />
<br />
Where <br />
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in its own [[inertial frame of reference|frame of reference]].<br />
:<math>u</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.<br />
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light <math>3 \times 10^8 </math> m s<sup>-1</sup><br />
:<math>\gamma</math> is the [[Lorentz factor]]<br />
<br />
====Derivation====<br />
<br />
Length contraction may be derived using the [[Lorentz transformation]]s as with time dilation. This time we use the equation for <math>x</math>. In this case, the time in the undashed frame must be the '''same'''. Following the same procedure as above we find that:<br />
<br />
<math>x'_2 -x'_1 = \frac{x_2 - x_1}{\gamma}</math><br />
<br />
This is the same as above with <math>x_2 - x_1</math> and <math>x'_2 - x'_1</math> being the lengths in the undashed and dashed frames respectively. Again, geometrical arguments may be used to achieve the same result.<br />
<br />
===Apparent mass increase===<br />
<br />
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><br />
<br />
Under this view, the mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:<br />
<br />
:<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math><br />
<br />
Where <br />
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object measured by an observer in the same reference frame as the object.<br />
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.<br />
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x10<sup>8</sup> ms<sup>-1</sup>).<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
In recent years most physicists have shifted away from Einstein's original reliance on relativistic mass and his suggestion that mass increases{{Citation needed|date=January 2012}}. Instead, most physicists today teach that <br />
<br />
:<math>F=\frac{d}{d\tau} p</math> <br />
<br />
where<br />
:<math>p</math> is the momentum defined by <math>\gamma m v</math><br />
:<math>\gamma</math> is the standard Lorentz factor<br />
:<math>\tau</math> is the proper time<br />
<br />
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.<br />
The abandonment by physicists of the concept of relativistic mass, however, has the consequence of undermining the traditional claim under relativity that<br />
<br />
:<math>m - m_0 = \frac{E}{c^2}</math> <br />
<br />
also popularly known as<br />
<br />
:<math>E = m c^2</math><br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
<math>||p||^2 = -p_x^2-p_y^2-p_z^2+E^2 = m_0^2c^4</math> <br />
<br />
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>).<br />
<br />
== Relativity in everyday life ==<br />
<br />
Due to the small speeds and gravitational fields in normal life, relativistic phenomena such as time dilation and length contraction are rarely observed. However some things in everyday life can be explained using relativity:<br />
<br />
*GPS, the satellites experience time dilation due to the difference in speed and the strength of gravitational field between the satellite and the ground. This is corrected by daily synchronisation between the ground and the atomic clocks in the satellites.<br />
*While most elemental metals such as [[silver]], [[zinc]] and [[mercury]] have a silver/grey appearance, some metals like [[gold]] and [[copper]] do not. This difference can be explained using relativistic quantum mechanics.<ref>http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/</ref><br />
<br />
== Paradoxes ==<br />
<br />
The predictions of the theory of relativity throw up a number of apparent paradoxes and anomalies relating to the effects of time dilatation and length contraction. Whilst these paradoxes are consistent with the theory, they are contrary to everyday human experience and therefore can seem like impossibilities.<br />
<br />
=== The Twin Paradox ===<br />
<br />
The twin paradox is usually stated as a thought experiment involving two twins, one of whom is sent on a long journey in a spacecraft travelling at close to the speed of light, whilst the other remains on Earth. Time dilatation means that the travelling twin, on his return to Earth, is younger that the twin who has remained at home. However, because neither twin is in a special position - each being in an inertial frame of reference - the reverse must also be true, and so the twin remaining on Earth must be younger. Hence each twin is younger than the other - a paradox.<br />
<br />
The problem can be resolved in two ways. One is to examine the effects of General Relativity: to come back to Earth, the travelling twin must undergo acceleration in order to reverse his course, causing temporal effects which make him permanently the younger. Alternatively, it can be explained entirely using Special Relativity and noting that the twins are not in symmetrical situations: the one on earth has remained in a single inertial frame of reference, whilst the travelling twin has travelled in two.<ref>http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm</ref> Note that the length of the trip cannot be increased as to make the acceleration negligible.<br />
<br />
=== The Ehrenfest Paradox ===<br />
<br />
The Ehrenfest Paradox considers a rigid wheel or disc rotating a bout its axis at high speed (somewhat like a bicycle wheel spinning freely on its axle). The rim of the wheel travels at close to the speed of light and therefore undergoes length contraction, whereas the radius (the spokes, for the bicycle wheel) does not. Hence the circumference is no longer equal to 2<big><math>\pi</math></big>r, which is paradoxical.<br />
<br />
The apparent paradox was finally resolved in 1975 by the Norwegian scientist Øyvind Grøn.<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=224955</ref><br />
<br />
==Speed "paradox"==<br />
<br />
This is not a paradox. It arises from failure to know or understand the "speed addition" formula. The formula tells how fast each observer measures the speed of the other observer when they are both traveling toward each other, as seen by some outside observer, at speeds <math>u</math> and <math>v</math>. Under classical mechanics, the result is just <math>u+v</math>. But the formula under special relativity is<br />
<br />
<math>\frac{u + v}{1 + \frac{uv}{c^2}}</math><br />
<br />
This formula is a consequence of the Lorentz transform. It is a well known part of the basic undergraduate physics curriculum.<br />
<br />
So, if two spacecraft are approaching each other, each traveling at what an outside observer would measure as half the speed of light, a person ignorant of how relativity works might think they each see the other coming toward them at the speed of light. But the formula shows that they actually see each other moving at <math>\frac{4}{5}</math> of the speed of light.<br />
<br />
If <math>u</math> and <math>v</math> are both less than the speed of light, one can show that the result of the addition formula will be also.<br />
<br />
== Variable Speed of Light ==<br />
<br />
The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like c, the speed of light in a vacuum, 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><br />
<br />
"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><br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
This apparent change in speed can be explained, however, by noting that the constant c refers to the speed of light in a vacuum, i.e., when it is unimpeded. The speed of light when traveling through physical media is, in fact, variable.<br />
<br />
"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><br />
<br />
==Pending research==<br />
<br />
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><br />
<br />
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><br />
<br />
== Political aspects of relativity ==<br />
<br />
Some [[liberal]] politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, [[Democratic]] [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[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, acknowledging help by 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> <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. A dubious 1993 Nobel prize in physics was awarded Hulse and Taylor for supposedly finding the first evidence of gravitational waves in the orbital decay of the binary pulsar PSR1913+16.<ref>Weisberg, Joel M.; Taylor, Joseph H. (2003), "The Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16"", in Bailes, M.; Nice, D. J.; Thorsett, S. E., Proceedings of "Radio Pulsars," Chania, Crete, August, 2002, ASP Conference Series</ref> A close reading of the paper reveals that that is based heavily on assumptions in trying to retrofit the data to the theory.<br />
<br />
===Government Support for Relativistic research===<br />
The Federal Government has funded the building of two gravity wave detectors: The first to test the principle, and the second (upgrade) to actually perform measurements. As a result of this work, on February 11, 2016, the LIGO team reported successful detection of gravitational waves caused by the merging of two black holes.<ref>https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211</ref><br />
<br />
{{Relativity}}<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Attempts to prove E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]]<br />
*[[Gravitational waves]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Science]]<br />
<br />
==External links ==<br />
*[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]<br />
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com Relativity Science Calculator - Learn Special Relativity Mathematics ] The mathematics of special relativity presented in as simple and comprehensive manner possible within philosophical and historical contexts.<br />
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/history_of_time_clocks.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - Philosophic Question: are clocks and time separable?]<br />
*[http://www.relativityscience.com/twin_clock_paradox.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - Twin Clock Paradox]</div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=1446547Theory of relativity2018-09-09T17:37:17Z<p>SamHB: /* Experimental and Observational Evidence Confirming Relativity */ acceptance vs. validation</p>
<hr />
<div>''See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].''<br />
<br />
In physics, the '''theory of relativity''' is a scientific theory describing the effects due to the invariance of the speed of light. In particular, the meaning of space and time are altered by the motion of the observer. Relativity proposes time dilation and length contraction for observers moving relative to one another at very high ("relativistic") speeds.<br />
<br />
'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related mathematical theories in [[physics]]:<br />
[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|<br />
*"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>]]<br />
*'''[[Special theory of relativity|Special relativity]]''' (SR) is a theory to describe 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 put forward by [[Albert Einstein]]; its mathematical framework was independently developed and formalized 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><br />
<br />
*'''[[General theory of relativity|General Relativity]]''' (GR) is a theory to explain the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was originally developed by Einstein, with help from [[David Hilbert]] in its final mathematical formulation, as a generalization of the postulates of Special Relativity to account for non-inertial, accelerating observers, particularly those in a gravitational field.<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<ref>Stephen Hawking, ''Brief History of Time'' ("Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get."). Hawking was being kind. In fact, Eddington excluded data that did not fit his preconceived view. Further discrediting of Eddington's study was published by Earman, J., Glymour, C., Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci. 11, 49-85 (1980), and Collins, H. M., Pinch, T., The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science. Cambridge University Press (1993) (as cited in [http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070907/full/news070903-20.html#B2])</ref> claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 popularized the theory.<br />
<br />
These theories have augmented earlier approaches, such as [[Galilean Relativity]].<br />
<br />
The theory of relativity is defended with religious-like zeal, such that no college faculty tenure, Ph.D degree, or Nobel Prize is ever awarded to anyone who dares criticize the theory, as the example of denying a Nobel Prize to the most accomplished physicist of the 20th century, [[Robert Dicke]], illustrates. Other critics of the theory are [[Nikola Tesla]], who called it a "...magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists..."<ref>[http://www.plasmacosmology.net/tesla.html New York Times, July 11, 1935, p23, c8]</ref> and Louis Essen [1908-1997], the man credited with determining the speed of light. He wrote many fiery papers against it such as ''Relativity and Time Signals''<ref>http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3297</ref> and ''Relativity - Joke or Swindle?''.<ref>http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm</ref> Perhaps the most famous website opposing relativity is this one, with its [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. The cornerstone item in that page involves the experimental measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury that show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.<br />
<br />
The theory 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><br />
<br />
The theory 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> Special relativity assumes that all observers in inertial frames of reference will measure the same value for the speed of light, '''c''' and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent. These hypotheses that can never be fully tested. Relativity rejects Newton's [[action at a distance]], which is basic to Newtonian gravity and also found to be a consequence of [[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, since quantum effects would not be negligible (in the same way non-relativistic quantum mechanics is not valid when dealing with particles traveling near the speed of light). <br />
<br />
The "continuous" nature of space and time postulated by relativity is in conflict with the "discrete" nature in [[quantum mechanics]],<ref>For example, Relativity claims that space and time are smooth and continuous, while [[quantum mechanics]] suggests otherwise. [http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out.] Relativity also denies [[action-at-a-distance]], while quantum mechanics suggests otherwise. Relativity denies any role for chance, while quantum mechanics is heavily dependent on it.</ref> 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.<br />
<br />
Unlike [[Classical mechanics|Newtonian 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 (x<sup>2</sup> - c<sup>2</sup> t<sup>2</sup>). The instantaneous transmission of Newtonian gravitational effects also contradicts relativity.<br />
<br />
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]].<br />
<br />
== Special Relativity ==<br />
Lorentz and Poincaré 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 Poincaré's theory<ref>http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"</ref> in terms of two assumptions (postulates):<br />
<br />
# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''<br />
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''<br />
<br />
In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:<br />
# 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><br />
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.<br />
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).<br />
<br />
Or, in more concise, clearer terms, these assumptions are this:<br />
<br />
#there is no [[action at a distance]] (because that would make observations dependent on the frame of reference)<br />
#space and time are completely symmetric throughout the universe (because otherwise frames of reference would not be interchangeable)<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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 Earth's orbital motion through the [[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.)<br />
<br />
At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Lorentz-Poincaré relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The media-promoted equation ''[[E=mc²]]'', implausibly suggests a relationship between typically unrelated concepts of energy, the rest mass of a body and the speed of light.<br />
<br />
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 of 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).<br />
<br />
Many scientists have indicated problems with the postulates of special relativity. Paul Davies, formerly of Macquarie University and now at the University of Arizona believes that the speed of light has changed over time. Since the speed of light is a constant speed 'c' this indicates problems with the theory [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2181455.stm light speed]. Other engineers and scientists have written about problems in the basic set of special relativity equations. Based on the ideas of not Einstein but of the scientist Fitzgerald as well as others, a length contraction effect was predicted as an explanation of the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect Earth's orbital motion. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss, a computer engineer, invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20120303075834/http://www.relativitycollapse.com/ Ad for the book ''The Collapse of Special Relativity</ref><br />
<br />
== General Relativity ==<br />
<br />
::::''See the [[General theory of relativity]] page for more in-depth coverage of this topic.''<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The anomalous precession of Mercury's [[perihelion]] seems to support the Theory of General Relativity, though that is disputed on the[[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. Keep in mind that the precession in question is the ''"anomalous"''<br />
precession after the effects of other planets' gravitation action has been compensated for. Those other effects are much larger, and are purely Newtonian in nature. There was another explanation based on Newtonian gravity, involving a slight alteration to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, but it was discarded when it gave very bad results for the Moon's orbit.<br />
<br />
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>[[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.<br />
<br />
::''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><br />
<br />
The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
==Lack of evidence for Relativity==<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Claims that relativity was used to develop the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) are false. A 1996 article explains:<br />
<br />
:"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><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. While Van Flandern believed that relativity is unnecessary for GPS, he also asserted that observations of GPS satellites supported both general and special relativity, writing that "we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days," with unrelated factors interfering with longer-term observations.<ref>http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp</ref><br />
<br />
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, likely because in Newtonian Mechanics every clock in the universe keeps time at the same rate regardless of velocity, acceleration, or the presence or absence of force.<br />
<br />
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><br />
<br />
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, but only if we treat light as capable of being accelerated and decelerated like ordinary matter, which is contrary to all measurements and observations to date.<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. <br />
<br />
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 so long as they do not undergo accelerations near the speed of light or enter any massive gravity wells.<ref>There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe.</ref><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. While general relativity was developed on purely theoretical grounds, it was soon discovered that it explained these precession observations.<ref>http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000</ref><ref>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node117.html</ref> Newton's theory can also explain the Mercury precession by making tiny adjustments to parameters in the gravitational equation, but doing so would give the same precession for all orbiting bodies everywhere, a phenomenon which is not observed.<br />
<br />
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 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><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity==<br />
<br />
Predictions of general relativity turn out to be obscure and difficult to test. The two most famous predictions were the bending of light in a gravitational field and the precession of the perihelia of orbiting planets.<br />
<br />
*The first of these was famously tested during a total eclipse in 1919. That test was somewhat muddled by an incorrect initial calculation, by several people including Einstein himself, of what the effect would be, and some "cherry picking" of the data to be used.<ref>''Einstein's Luck'', John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9</ref> The data selection could be considered "manipulation" or "fudging", by a person (Arthur Eddington) who had a personal stake in the outcome. His analysis techniques would not pass muster today. The announcement of this test, flawed though it was, made Einstein world-famous.<ref>[http://einstein.stanford.edu/Library/images/lightsAllAskewBig.jpg The New York Times, Nov. 10, 1919]</ref><ref>[https://www.worldbooklearning.com/how-did-an-eclipse-help-make-albert-einstein-famous/ How did an eclipse help make Albert Einstein famous]</ref><ref>[https://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post/44934715350/how-albert-einstein-became-a-celebrity How Albert Einstein became a celebrity]</ref><ref>[https://www.sciencealert.com/general-relativity-experiment-confirms-accuracy-for-galaxies "The public's mind was blown by the results, effectively turning Albert Einstein into a household name and cementing the concept of general relativity into physics books."]</ref><br />
<br />
:It should be noted that pre-relativistic (Newtonian) physics may also predict a bending, of half the observed value, depending on whether one uses the 17th century "corpuscular" formulation or the 19th century "wave" formulation.<br />
<br />
:Relying on the usual assumptions&mdash;Newtonian mechanics, Galilean relativity, conservation of energy and momentum, the universality of the speed of light (that is, special relativity), the Equivalence Principle, and the geodesic equation in empty space (that is, general relativity), and the proper calibration of the instruments, observations of later eclipses, and the observations of quasar 3C273, confirm predictions of the theory.<br />
<br />
:No [[Nobel Prize]] was was awarded for this. A few years later Einstein won the Nobel Prize for the (unrelated) [[Photoelectric effect]].<br />
<br />
*The second "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.<br />
<br />
:No Nobel Prize was was awarded for this.<br />
<br />
==Experimental and Observational Evidence Confirming Relativity==<br />
<br />
The different effects predicted by special relativity, compared to classical formulations, are extremely tiny. Most relativistic effects are negligible at the speeds of ordinary phenomena observed by humans. The effects only become significant when the speeds involved are a significant fraction of the speed of light, which is <math>3 \times 10^8</math> meters per second&mdash;such speeds are called ''relativistic''. (However, it's worth noting that ordinary magnetism can be considered an effect of relativity, dictated by the need for electrostatic theory to be correct under relativity. The speed of light in fact appears in the formulas ([[Maxwell's Equations]]) governing electricity and magnetism, though these equations were developed long before relativity was proposed.)<br />
<br />
Because the effects of relativity are so tiny, scientists have been devising sophisticated and sensitive tests ever since the theory was formulated in 1905.<br />
<br />
It is important to be aware that it is fairly rare for an experiment to '''prove''' a theory. In general, 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 a theory, it lends credence to that theory. When no other plausible theory can explain 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 was at one time another competing theory&mdash;the Newcomb-Hall exponent-fudging theory. That one didn't hold up for things other than Mercury. No other theory has come up explaining the phenomenon; GR has withstood the test of time. That goes a long way toward validating GR. There are many other observations and experiments, covering a wide variety of phenomena, described below&mdash;bending of light, gravitational time dilation, gravitational waves, geodetic precession, Shapiro effect, etc. It is these widely disparate observations, and the lack of any alternative theories explaining any of them, that lead people to say that GR is "experimentally validated".<br />
<br />
There's also the matter of simply "accepting" something, when a phenomenon is consistent with a theory that is already known to be valid. The recoil from a gun is an example of this. Everyone knows that there is a backward recoil when a gun is fired. This is explained to people when they are first being taught how to use a gun, and they get used to it with practice. The reason for the recoil is that it is an obvious consequence of Newtons' laws of motion. But people don't specifically think about Newton's laws, or consider this to be a "proof", when they are firing a gun. They just accept that the recoil is a known consequence of those laws. Newton's laws of motion have been validated through thousands of experiments much more focused than the firing of a gun. The [[Cockcroft and Walton Experiment|Cockcroft/Walton experiment]] is another example of this kind of acceptance. The results are consistent (to within 5% when analyzed carefully) with Special Relativity, and many people consider it to be a validation of SR. But there were too many other things going on, such as the use of the newly-invented particle accelerator, to make it a definitive test. In any case, Special Relativity had already been validated through more focused and definitive tests.<br />
<br />
While the experimental tests for General Relativity are rather esoteric, those for Special Relativity are fairly straightforward. So much so that the Michelson-Morley experiment could be said to have single-handedly established the case for SR&mdash;the logical syllogism leading from Michelson-Morley to SR and the Lorentz transform was fairly clear once people saw it.<br />
<br />
When analyzing an experiment to see whether it validates a theory, one must be careful not to assume the theory in one's reasoning. For establishing Special Relativity with the Michelson-Morley experiment, the assumptions are:<br />
<br />
#Newtonian and Galilean mechanics.<br />
#Galilean relativity, that is, the notion that there is no absolute frame of reference.<br />
#The universality of the speed of light.<br />
#And, of course, proper calibration of the equipment.<br />
#:The third one was the observation that Michelson and Morley made.<br />
#:<br />
#:<br />
#:For the derivation of E=mc², these assumptions are added:<br />
#:<br />
#Conservation of energy.<br />
#Conservation of momentum.<br />
#:All of the assumptions listed above constitute SR.<br />
#:<br />
#:It would be nearly inconceivable to derive GR without SR. Gravitational time dilation, for example, requires a lot of information coming from SR. <br />
#:So, for the experiments listed below for GR, the assumptions are the 6 above plus:<br />
#The Equivalence Principle.<br />
#:So the experiments below for GR are really just establishing that the Equivalence Principle is valid, and that GR follows logically from that.<br />
<br />
The most famous experiment, and the one that is commonly cited in textbooks as the experiment that established the case for relativity,<ref>Though relativity did not actually originate from this experiment</ref> was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]]. This showed that all observers will obtain the same measured value for the speed of light (3x10<sup>8</sup> meters per second) no matter what their state of motion. This is the first of the two fundamental principles:<br />
#''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''<br />
#''The laws of physics are identical in all reference frames.''<br />
(The second is just a restatement of Galilean relativity, that is, the "common sense" that had been accepted for centuries.)<br />
A naive "common sense" interpretation of Galilean relativity would require that measurements of the speed of light (or anything else) by different observers would get results that differ by the observers' relative speeds, and hence that principle #1 can't be true. Special relativity fixes this apparent paradox.<br />
<br />
All of special relativity derives for these two principles, plus assumptions of exact conservation of momentum and energy in all cases.<br />
<br />
*At the end of Einstein's original 1905 paper on the subject<ref>http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?"</ref>, he speculates on the possibility that the equation <math>E = m c^2</math>, which would normally be very hard to verify, could be verified with the extremely high energies of the newly discovered phenomenon of radioactivity.<ref>This equation is not related to [[quantum mechanics]].</ref> In the 1910s, with the invention of the mass spectrometer, it became possible to measure masses of nuclei accurately. This led to the clearing up of the mystery of atomic masses not being exact integers,and strongly suggested the existence of a "mass defect" (or "packing fraction") consistent with the mass-energy equivalence. In the 1930s, experiments with known nuclear reactions showed a very accurate correlation between the masses of the nuclei involved and the energy released. See [[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]].<br />
<br />
*Another prediction of special relativity was time dilation in rapidly moving objects. This effect was most famously verified in the anomalously slow decay of relativistic cosmic muons.<ref>Some have suggested that other explanations are possible for this effect. We are trying to track this down.</ref> Time dilation has since been verified many times, and is routinely taken into account in all high-energy nuclear physics experiments, as in Hadron collision experiments.<ref>Experiments specifically designed to check dilation are rarely conducted any more.</ref><br />
<br />
As the 20th century progressed, tests of general relativity were proposed.<br />
<br />
*One important "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.<br />
<br />
:This created quite a problem&mdash;physicists by then were accustomed to having their theories check out very accurately. One proposal that was made, by Simon Newcomb and Asaph Hall, was that the exponent of the radius in the gravitational formula wasn't exactly 2. He showed that, by choosing an exponent of <math>2+\delta</math>, the precession, as a fraction of a full orbit per planet's year, is <math>\delta/2</math>. By setting <math>\delta</math> to .000000157, that is, an exponent of 2.000000157, Newcomb was able to get a precession of .000000078 revolutions per Mercury year, or 43 arcseconds per Earth year. Whatever value is chosen for <math>\delta\,</math>, it gives the same precession, per revolution, for all orbiting bodies, but gravitational effects from other planets diminish that effect the further the planet is from the sun.<br />
<br />
:The approximation given at the end of Einstein's 1916 paper <ref>http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_GRelativity_1916.pdf "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity"</ref> is <math>24 \pi^3\frac{a^2}{T^2c^2 (1-e^2)}</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where a is the semi-major axis, T is the length of the planet's year, and e is the eccentricity. A much simpler, but less accurate, approximation, designed to show how the precession relates to the planet's speed, is <math>3{}v^2/c^2</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where <math>v</math> is the planet's average orbital speed. These are just approximations. Getting an accurate value requires integrating the geodesic equation where Ricci's tensor is zero.<br />
<br />
:While Newcomb's theory, and general relativity, don't lead to closed-form solutions, both theories can be solved numerically to as much precision as one desires.<br />
<br />
:The following table shows some approximate parameters for the planets. Note that Mercury has the smallest orbit, and the fastest speed. Precession of planets other than Mercury is extremely hard to measure, but measurements of the actual anomalous precessions are in good agreement.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref><br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Planet<br />
!Period, seconds x 10<sup>6</sup><br />
!Semimajor axis, meters x 10<sup>9</sup><br />
!Speed, meters/second x 10<sup>3</sup><br />
!Gravitational force, Newtons per kilogram<br />
!Anomalous precession, arcseconds per (Earth) century, pure Newtonian mechanics<br />
!Anomalous precession, Newtonian with exponent of 2.000000157<br />
!Anomalous precession, general relativity<br />
!Measured anomalous precession (estimated uncertainty)<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref><br />
|-<br />
|Mercury<br />
|7.57<br />
|58.9<br />
|48<br />
|.039<br />
|0<br />
|43<br />
|43<br />
|43.5(5)<br />
|-<br />
|Venus<br />
|19.6<br />
|108<br />
|35<br />
|.011<br />
|0<br />
|16.6<br />
|9<br />
|8(5)<br />
|-<br />
|Earth<br />
|31.6<br />
|150<br />
|30<br />
|.006<br />
|0<br />
|10.3<br />
|4<br />
|5(1)<br />
|-<br />
|Mars<br />
|59.3<br />
|227.9<br />
|24<br />
|.0025<br />
|0<br />
|5.5<br />
|1.4<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Jupiter<br />
|374<br />
|778.4<br />
|13<br />
|.0002<br />
|0<br />
|0.87<br />
|0.07<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Saturn<br />
|929<br />
|1426<br />
|9.7<br />
|.00006<br />
|0<br />
|0.35<br />
|0.014<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Uranus<br />
|2651<br />
|2870<br />
|6.8<br />
|.000016<br />
|0<br />
|0.12<br />
|0.002<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Neptune<br />
|5200<br />
|4498<br />
|5.5<br />
|.000007<br />
|0<br />
|0.063<br />
|0.0008<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
: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, and using very accurate calculations rather than the approximations given above, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values, as of 2008, are:<br />
::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)<br />
::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)<br />
::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)<br />
::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992) <br />
::: (Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijpers 2008])<br />
:These error bars, and that of the general relativity prediction, all overlap.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|The Shapiro effect: A spacecraft signal dipping into a gravity well around the [[Sun]] is delayed slightly.]]<br />
<br />
*Another is the ''Shapiro effect'', involving time delay in radio signals passing through the gravity well of the Sun or a planet. Various spacecraft have confirmed this.<br />
<br />
*Another is ''gravitational time dilation''. This is an effect separate from the time dilation of special relativity. It was tested by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959. No Nobel Prize was awarded for this. Professor Pound had previously shared in the 1952 Nobel for his contributions to Nuclear Magnetic Resonance imaging.<br />
<br />
*Later in the 20th century, even more subtle phenomena were tested. One was the phenomenon of ''gravitational radiation'', or "gravitational waves". These waves are incredibly difficult to observe, and had never been observed until 2015. But extremely dense binary pulsars radiate gravitational waves with sufficient energy loss that, even though we can't detect the waves from Earth, we can see the effect of the energy loss from the radiation. The extreme precision of the timing of pulses from pulsars makes it possible to observe their energy loss with great accuracy. Observations by Hulse and Taylor of the pulsar pair known as B1913+16, found the energy loss to be consistent with the predicted radiation. This required choosing orbital parameters to be consistent with observation, in the same way that Kepler chose orbital parameters to fit observed planetary motion to his theory. The rotating pulsars have since moved such that Earth is now out of the beams. The assumptions required for this, in addition to those listed above, were that pulsars behave consistently. The 1993 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded for this.<br />
<br />
*In late 2015 (and announced in 2016), the LIGO instruments directly detected gravitational waves allegedly from colliding [[black hole]]s. See [[Gravitational waves]]. Unlike the waves from orbiting pulsars, that could only be detected by the loss of rotation energy, the waves from colliding black holes were strong enough to be detected directly. The assumptions required for this, in addition to those listed above, were that the objects emitting the radiation (generally believed to be black holes, of course) satisfy the Schwartzschild solution to relativistic mechanics. The 2017 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded for this.<br />
<br />
*In 2018 an observation of the 3-body system PSR J0337+1715, consisting of 2 white dwarfs and a pulsar, was consistent with (and hence tended to confirm) general relativity under conditions of extremely high gravity, to enormous precision. The assumptions made were the same as those listed above. One of the researchers stated "If there is a difference [between observation and the prediction of the Equivalence Principle], it is no more than three parts in a million."<ref>https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/einstein-s-theory-relativity-passes-its-toughest-test-yet-ncna889021</ref><br />
<br />
*In 2018, observations of a star orbiting the supermassive black hole "Sagittarius A*" at the center of our galaxy, showed that the light was stretched from the black hole's gravity just as relativity predicted. The star orbits Sagittarius A* at speeds of up to 16 million miles per hour. This was the first observation of such intense gravity.<ref>https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/einstein-s-theory-relativity-aces-its-first-black-hole-test-ncna896641</ref><br />
<br />
*An additional test of general relativity was performed with radio signals to the Cassini spacecraft.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/nature01997.html</ref><br />
<br />
*Two other effects, ''geodetic precession'' (also known as "de Sitter precession"), and ''frame dragging'' (also known as the "Lense-Thirring effect") were tested by the "Gravity Probe B" satellite early in the 21st century.<ref>http://prl.aps.org/accepted/L/ea070Y8dQ491d22a28828c95f660a57ac82e7d8c0</ref><ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306430</ref><ref>http://www.nap.edu/html/gpb/summary.html</ref><ref>http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/73870/title/Gravity_Probe_B_finally_pays_off_</ref><ref>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/</ref><ref>http://einstein.stanford.edu/</ref><ref>http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/the-gravity-probe-b-bailout</ref><ref>http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/06/nasa-concludes-gravity-probe-b-space-time-experiment-proves-e/</ref> The precision required to observe this was phenomenal. The results were announced on May 4, 2011.<br />
<br />
{{clear}}<!-- make the Shapiro picture not obliterate the next section heading --><br />
<br />
==Predicted consequences of the Theories==<br />
===Time dilation===<br />
<!-- NOTE [[Time dilation]] redirects to this section, so the section name should not be changed without amending that redirect. --><br />
[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]<br />
One important consequence of relativity is that an observer in one reference frame will not in general observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" at the same rate as one in the observer's own frame.<br />
<br />
In [[special relativity]], where acceleration and gravitational effects are ignored, this can be derived using basic geometry. The result is that clocks in all other [[inertial frames of reference]] other than the one you are in appear to tick slower. This can be summarised by the well known phrase "moving clocks run slow".<br />
<br />
However, with [[general relativity]], there are similar effects such as gravitational time dilation where a clockthat is higher in a gravitational field runs faster. Often the effects of relativity are negligible. However the high precision required for the [[GPS|GPS system]] needs relativistic corrections. The rest of this section will concern only [[special relativity]].<br />
<br />
The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:<br />
<br />
<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{u^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math> <br />
<br />
Where <br />
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.<br />
:<math>u</math> is the relative velocity between the [[inertial frame of reference|reference frames]].<br />
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x10<sup>8</sup> m s<sup>-1</sup>).<br />
<br />
Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying muon decay. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic particles]] with a short [[halflife]] of 1.53 microseconds. When produced by interactions of [[cosmic rays]] in the upper atmosphere, they have a speed around 0.994c. By putting muon detectors at the top (D<sub>1</sub>) and bottom (D<sub>2</sub>) of a mountain with a separation of 1900 m, 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The time taken for a muon to travel from D<sub>1</sub> to D<sub>2</sub> as measured by a stationary observer is:<br />
<br />
<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math><br />
<br />
The fraction of muons arriving at D<sub>2</sub> in comparison to D<sub>1</sub> was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)<br />
<br />
Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then<br />
<br />
<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math><br />
<br />
This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.<br />
<br />
Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:<br />
<br />
<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><br />
<br />
This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.<br />
<br />
Since either [[inertial frame of reference|reference frame]] is equally valid, from the [[muon]]'s point of view it sees the [[earth]] approach it at nearly the [[speed of light]]. Hence time passes faster for the muon (slower for an observer on the ground). This appears to be a contradiction. However, the [[muon]] sees the height of the mountain contracted and so travels a shorter distance in its own frame. See length contraction below.<br />
<br />
====Time Dilation and Creation Science====<br />
<br />
{{main|Starlight problem#Humphreys.27_model}}<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
====Derivation of Time Dilation====<br />
<br />
Time dilation is most easily derived using the [[Lorentz transformation]]s, though geometrical solution is also straight forward. Using the transformation relating [[time]] between two [[Inertial frame of reference|frames of reference]], <math>t</math> and <math>t'</math>. We can find the time difference between two events that occur at the '''same''' location in space. The events shall be called event one and event 2. This results in the equations:<br />
<br />
<math>t'_1 = \gamma \left(t_1 - \frac{ux}{c^2} \right) </math><br/><br />
<math>t'_2 = \gamma \left(t_2 - \frac{ux}{c^2} \right) </math><br />
<br />
where<br />
:<math>\gamma</math> is the [[Lorentz factor]]<br />
:<math>u</math> is the relative [[speed]] between [[Inertial frame of reference|reference frames]]<br />
:<math>c</math> is the [[speed of light]]<br />
<br />
Subtracting the top equation from the bottom produces the time between the events as measured in each reference frame, so:<br />
<br />
<math>t'_2 - t'_1 = \gamma (t_2 - t_1)</math><br />
<br />
This the equation for time dilation and is the same equation as earlier.<br />
<br />
===Length contraction===<br />
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 along the direction parallel to the relative motion.<br />
<br />
The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:<br />
<br />
<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{u^{2}}{c^{2}}} = \frac{l_0}{\gamma}</math><br />
<br />
Where <br />
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in its own [[inertial frame of reference|frame of reference]].<br />
:<math>u</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.<br />
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light <math>3 \times 10^8 </math> m s<sup>-1</sup><br />
:<math>\gamma</math> is the [[Lorentz factor]]<br />
<br />
====Derivation====<br />
<br />
Length contraction may be derived using the [[Lorentz transformation]]s as with time dilation. This time we use the equation for <math>x</math>. In this case, the time in the undashed frame must be the '''same'''. Following the same procedure as above we find that:<br />
<br />
<math>x'_2 -x'_1 = \frac{x_2 - x_1}{\gamma}</math><br />
<br />
This is the same as above with <math>x_2 - x_1</math> and <math>x'_2 - x'_1</math> being the lengths in the undashed and dashed frames respectively. Again, geometrical arguments may be used to achieve the same result.<br />
<br />
===Mass increase===<br />
<br />
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><br />
<br />
Under this view, the mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:<br />
<br />
:<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math><br />
<br />
Where <br />
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object measured by an observer in the same reference frame as the object.<br />
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.<br />
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x10<sup>8</sup> ms<sup>-1</sup>).<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
In recent years most physicists have shifted away from Einstein's original reliance on relativistic mass and his suggestion that mass increases{{Citation needed|date=January 2012}}. Instead, most physicists today teach that <br />
<br />
:<math>F=\frac{d}{d\tau} p</math> <br />
<br />
where<br />
:<math>p</math> is the momentum defined by <math>\gamma m v</math><br />
:<math>\gamma</math> is the standard Lorentz factor<br />
:<math>\tau</math> is the proper time<br />
<br />
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.<br />
The abandonment by physicists of the concept of relativistic mass, however, has the consequence of undermining the traditional claim under relativity that<br />
<br />
:<math>m - m_0 = \frac{E}{c^2}</math> <br />
<br />
also popularly known as<br />
<br />
:<math>E = m c^2</math><br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
<math>||p||^2 = -p_x^2-p_y^2-p_z^2+E^2 = m_0^2c^4</math> <br />
<br />
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>).<br />
<br />
== Relativity in everyday life ==<br />
<br />
Due to the small speeds and gravitational fields in normal life, relativistic phenomena such as time dilation and length contraction are rarely observed. However some things in everyday life can be explained using relativity:<br />
<br />
*GPS, the satellites experience time dilation due to the difference in speed and the strength of gravitational field between the satellite and the ground. This is corrected by daily synchronisation between the ground and the atomic clocks in the satellites.<br />
*While most elemental metals such as [[silver]], [[zinc]] and [[mercury]] have a silver/grey appearance, some metals like [[gold]] and [[copper]] do not. This difference can be explained using relativistic quantum mechanics.<ref>http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/</ref><br />
<br />
== Paradoxes ==<br />
<br />
The predictions of the theory of relativity throw up a number of apparent paradoxes and anomalies relating to the effects of time dilatation and length contraction. Whilst these paradoxes are consistent with the theory, they are contrary to everyday human experience and therefore can seem like impossibilities.<br />
<br />
=== The Twin Paradox ===<br />
<br />
The twin paradox is usually stated as a thought experiment involving two twins, one of whom is sent on a long journey in a spacecraft travelling at close to the speed of light, whilst the other remains on Earth. Time dilatation means that the travelling twin, on his return to Earth, is younger that the twin who has remained at home. However, because neither twin is in a special position - each being in an inertial frame of reference - the reverse must also be true, and so the twin remaining on Earth must be younger. Hence each twin is younger than the other - a paradox.<br />
<br />
The problem can be resolved in two ways. One is to examine the effects of General Relativity: to come back to Earth, the travelling twin must undergo acceleration in order to reverse his course, causing temporal effects which make him permanently the younger. Alternatively, it can be explained entirely using Special Relativity and noting that the twins are not in symmetrical situations: the one on earth has remained in a single inertial frame of reference, whilst the travelling twin has travelled in two.<ref>http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm</ref> Note that the length of the trip cannot be increased as to make the acceleration negligible.<br />
<br />
=== The Ehrenfest Paradox ===<br />
<br />
The Ehrenfest Paradox considers a rigid wheel or disc rotating a bout its axis at high speed (somewhat like a bicycle wheel spinning freely on its axle). The rim of the wheel travels at close to the speed of light and therefore undergoes length contraction, whereas the radius (the spokes, for the bicycle wheel) does not. Hence the circumference is no longer equal to 2<big><math>\pi</math></big>r, which is paradoxical.<br />
<br />
The apparent paradox was finally resolved in 1975 by the Norwegian scientist Øyvind Grøn.<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=224955</ref><br />
<br />
==Speed "paradox"==<br />
<br />
This is not a paradox. It arises from failure to know or understand the "speed addition" formula. The formula tells how fast each observer measures the speed of the other observer when they are both traveling toward each other, as seen by some outside observer, at speeds <math>u</math> and <math>v</math>. Under classical mechanics, the result is just <math>u+v</math>. But the formula under special relativity is<br />
<br />
<math>\frac{u + v}{1 + \frac{uv}{c^2}}</math><br />
<br />
This formula is a consequence of the Lorentz transform. It is a well known part of the basic undergraduate physics curriculum.<br />
<br />
So, if two spacecraft are approaching each other, each traveling at what an outside observer would measure as half the speed of light, a person ignorant of how relativity works might think they each see the other coming toward them at the speed of light. But the formula shows that they actually see each other moving at <math>\frac{4}{5}</math> of the speed of light.<br />
<br />
If <math>u</math> and <math>v</math> are both less than the speed of light, one can show that the result of the addition formula will be also.<br />
<br />
== Variable Speed of Light ==<br />
<br />
The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like c, the speed of light in a vacuum, 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><br />
<br />
"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><br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
This apparent change in speed can be explained, however, by noting that the constant c refers to the speed of light in a vacuum, i.e., when it is unimpeded. The speed of light when traveling through physical media is, in fact, variable.<br />
<br />
"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><br />
<br />
==Pending research==<br />
<br />
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><br />
<br />
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><br />
<br />
== Political aspects of relativity ==<br />
<br />
Some [[liberal]] politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, [[Democratic]] [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[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, acknowledging help by 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> <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. A dubious 1993 Nobel prize in physics was awarded Hulse and Taylor for supposedly finding the first evidence of gravitational waves in the orbital decay of the binary pulsar PSR1913+16.<ref>Weisberg, Joel M.; Taylor, Joseph H. (2003), "The Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16"", in Bailes, M.; Nice, D. J.; Thorsett, S. E., Proceedings of "Radio Pulsars," Chania, Crete, August, 2002, ASP Conference Series</ref> A close reading of the paper reveals that that is based heavily on assumptions in trying to retrofit the data to the theory.<br />
<br />
===Government Support for Relativistic research===<br />
The Federal Government has funded the building of two gravity wave detectors: The first to test the principle, and the second (upgrade) to actually perform measurements. As a result of this work, on February 11, 2016, the LIGO team reported successful detection of gravitational waves caused by the merging of two black holes.<ref>https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211</ref><br />
<br />
{{Relativity}}<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Attempts to prove E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]]<br />
*[[Gravitational waves]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Science]]<br />
<br />
==External links ==<br />
*[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]<br />
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com Relativity Science Calculator - Learn Special Relativity Mathematics ] The mathematics of special relativity presented in as simple and comprehensive manner possible within philosophical and historical contexts.<br />
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/history_of_time_clocks.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - Philosophic Question: are clocks and time separable?]<br />
*[http://www.relativityscience.com/twin_clock_paradox.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - Twin Clock Paradox]</div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=1446507Theory of relativity2018-09-09T17:13:57Z<p>SamHB: /* Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity */</p>
<hr />
<div>''See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].''<br />
<br />
In physics, the '''theory of relativity''' is a scientific theory describing the effects due to the invariance of the speed of light. In particular, the meaning of space and time are altered by the motion of the observer. Relativity proposes time dilation and length contraction for observers moving relative to one another at very high ("relativistic") speeds.<br />
<br />
'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related mathematical theories in [[physics]]:<br />
[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|<br />
*"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>]]<br />
*'''[[Special theory of relativity|Special relativity]]''' (SR) is a theory to describe 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 put forward by [[Albert Einstein]]; its mathematical framework was independently developed and formalized 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><br />
<br />
*'''[[General theory of relativity|General Relativity]]''' (GR) is a theory to explain the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was originally developed by Einstein, with help from [[David Hilbert]] in its final mathematical formulation, as a generalization of the postulates of Special Relativity to account for non-inertial, accelerating observers, particularly those in a gravitational field.<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<ref>Stephen Hawking, ''Brief History of Time'' ("Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get."). Hawking was being kind. In fact, Eddington excluded data that did not fit his preconceived view. Further discrediting of Eddington's study was published by Earman, J., Glymour, C., Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci. 11, 49-85 (1980), and Collins, H. M., Pinch, T., The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science. Cambridge University Press (1993) (as cited in [http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070907/full/news070903-20.html#B2])</ref> claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 popularized the theory.<br />
<br />
These theories have augmented earlier approaches, such as [[Galilean Relativity]].<br />
<br />
The theory of relativity is defended with religious-like zeal, such that no college faculty tenure, Ph.D degree, or Nobel Prize is ever awarded to anyone who dares criticize the theory, as the example of denying a Nobel Prize to the most accomplished physicist of the 20th century, [[Robert Dicke]], illustrates. Other critics of the theory are [[Nikola Tesla]], who called it a "...magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists..."<ref>[http://www.plasmacosmology.net/tesla.html New York Times, July 11, 1935, p23, c8]</ref> and Louis Essen [1908-1997], the man credited with determining the speed of light. He wrote many fiery papers against it such as ''Relativity and Time Signals''<ref>http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3297</ref> and ''Relativity - Joke or Swindle?''.<ref>http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm</ref> Perhaps the most famous website opposing relativity is this one, with its [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. The cornerstone item in that page involves the experimental measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury that show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.<br />
<br />
The theory 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><br />
<br />
The theory 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> Special relativity assumes that all observers in inertial frames of reference will measure the same value for the speed of light, '''c''' and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent. These hypotheses that can never be fully tested. Relativity rejects Newton's [[action at a distance]], which is basic to Newtonian gravity and also found to be a consequence of [[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, since quantum effects would not be negligible (in the same way non-relativistic quantum mechanics is not valid when dealing with particles traveling near the speed of light). <br />
<br />
The "continuous" nature of space and time postulated by relativity is in conflict with the "discrete" nature in [[quantum mechanics]],<ref>For example, Relativity claims that space and time are smooth and continuous, while [[quantum mechanics]] suggests otherwise. [http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out.] Relativity also denies [[action-at-a-distance]], while quantum mechanics suggests otherwise. Relativity denies any role for chance, while quantum mechanics is heavily dependent on it.</ref> 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.<br />
<br />
Unlike [[Classical mechanics|Newtonian 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 (x<sup>2</sup> - c<sup>2</sup> t<sup>2</sup>). The instantaneous transmission of Newtonian gravitational effects also contradicts relativity.<br />
<br />
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]].<br />
<br />
== Special Relativity ==<br />
Lorentz and Poincaré 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 Poincaré's theory<ref>http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"</ref> in terms of two assumptions (postulates):<br />
<br />
# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''<br />
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''<br />
<br />
In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:<br />
# 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><br />
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.<br />
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).<br />
<br />
Or, in more concise, clearer terms, these assumptions are this:<br />
<br />
#there is no [[action at a distance]] (because that would make observations dependent on the frame of reference)<br />
#space and time are completely symmetric throughout the universe (because otherwise frames of reference would not be interchangeable)<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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 Earth's orbital motion through the [[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.)<br />
<br />
At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Lorentz-Poincaré relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The media-promoted equation ''[[E=mc²]]'', implausibly suggests a relationship between typically unrelated concepts of energy, the rest mass of a body and the speed of light.<br />
<br />
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 of 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).<br />
<br />
Many scientists have indicated problems with the postulates of special relativity. Paul Davies, formerly of Macquarie University and now at the University of Arizona believes that the speed of light has changed over time. Since the speed of light is a constant speed 'c' this indicates problems with the theory [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2181455.stm light speed]. Other engineers and scientists have written about problems in the basic set of special relativity equations. Based on the ideas of not Einstein but of the scientist Fitzgerald as well as others, a length contraction effect was predicted as an explanation of the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect Earth's orbital motion. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss, a computer engineer, invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20120303075834/http://www.relativitycollapse.com/ Ad for the book ''The Collapse of Special Relativity</ref><br />
<br />
== General Relativity ==<br />
<br />
::::''See the [[General theory of relativity]] page for more in-depth coverage of this topic.''<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The anomalous precession of Mercury's [[perihelion]] seems to support the Theory of General Relativity, though that is disputed on the[[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. Keep in mind that the precession in question is the ''"anomalous"''<br />
precession after the effects of other planets' gravitation action has been compensated for. Those other effects are much larger, and are purely Newtonian in nature. There was another explanation based on Newtonian gravity, involving a slight alteration to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, but it was discarded when it gave very bad results for the Moon's orbit.<br />
<br />
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>[[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.<br />
<br />
::''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><br />
<br />
The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
==Lack of evidence for Relativity==<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Claims that relativity was used to develop the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) are false. A 1996 article explains:<br />
<br />
:"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><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. While Van Flandern believed that relativity is unnecessary for GPS, he also asserted that observations of GPS satellites supported both general and special relativity, writing that "we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days," with unrelated factors interfering with longer-term observations.<ref>http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp</ref><br />
<br />
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, likely because in Newtonian Mechanics every clock in the universe keeps time at the same rate regardless of velocity, acceleration, or the presence or absence of force.<br />
<br />
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><br />
<br />
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, but only if we treat light as capable of being accelerated and decelerated like ordinary matter, which is contrary to all measurements and observations to date.<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. <br />
<br />
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 so long as they do not undergo accelerations near the speed of light or enter any massive gravity wells.<ref>There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe.</ref><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. While general relativity was developed on purely theoretical grounds, it was soon discovered that it explained these precession observations.<ref>http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000</ref><ref>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node117.html</ref> Newton's theory can also explain the Mercury precession by making tiny adjustments to parameters in the gravitational equation, but doing so would give the same precession for all orbiting bodies everywhere, a phenomenon which is not observed.<br />
<br />
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 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><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity==<br />
<br />
Predictions of general relativity turn out to be obscure and difficult to test. The two most famous predictions were the bending of light in a gravitational field and the precession of the perihelia of orbiting planets.<br />
<br />
*The first of these was famously tested during a total eclipse in 1919. That test was somewhat muddled by an incorrect initial calculation, by several people including Einstein himself, of what the effect would be, and some "cherry picking" of the data to be used.<ref>''Einstein's Luck'', John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9</ref> The data selection could be considered "manipulation" or "fudging", by a person (Arthur Eddington) who had a personal stake in the outcome. His analysis techniques would not pass muster today. The announcement of this test, flawed though it was, made Einstein world-famous.<ref>[http://einstein.stanford.edu/Library/images/lightsAllAskewBig.jpg The New York Times, Nov. 10, 1919]</ref><ref>[https://www.worldbooklearning.com/how-did-an-eclipse-help-make-albert-einstein-famous/ How did an eclipse help make Albert Einstein famous]</ref><ref>[https://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post/44934715350/how-albert-einstein-became-a-celebrity How Albert Einstein became a celebrity]</ref><ref>[https://www.sciencealert.com/general-relativity-experiment-confirms-accuracy-for-galaxies "The public's mind was blown by the results, effectively turning Albert Einstein into a household name and cementing the concept of general relativity into physics books."]</ref><br />
<br />
:It should be noted that pre-relativistic (Newtonian) physics may also predict a bending, of half the observed value, depending on whether one uses the 17th century "corpuscular" formulation or the 19th century "wave" formulation.<br />
<br />
:Relying on the usual assumptions&mdash;Newtonian mechanics, Galilean relativity, conservation of energy and momentum, the universality of the speed of light (that is, special relativity), the Equivalence Principle, and the geodesic equation in empty space (that is, general relativity), and the proper calibration of the instruments, observations of later eclipses, and the observations of quasar 3C273, confirm predictions of the theory.<br />
<br />
:No [[Nobel Prize]] was was awarded for this. A few years later Einstein won the Nobel Prize for the (unrelated) [[Photoelectric effect]].<br />
<br />
*The second "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.<br />
<br />
:No Nobel Prize was was awarded for this.<br />
<br />
==Experimental and Observational Evidence Confirming Relativity==<br />
<br />
The different effects predicted by special relativity, compared to classical formulations, are extremely tiny. Most relativistic effects are negligible at the speeds of ordinary phenomena observed by humans. The effects only become significant when the speeds involved are a significant fraction of the speed of light, which is <math>3 \times 10^8</math> meters per second&mdash;such speeds are called ''relativistic''. (However, it's worth noting that ordinary magnetism can be considered an effect of relativity, dictated by the need for electrostatic theory to be correct under relativity. The speed of light in fact appears in the formulas ([[Maxwell's Equations]]) governing electricity and magnetism, though these equations were developed long before relativity was proposed.)<br />
<br />
Because the effects of relativity are so tiny, scientists have been devising sophisticated and sensitive tests ever since the theory was formulated in 1905.<br />
<br />
It is important to be aware that it is fairly rare for an experiment to '''prove''' a theory. In general, 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 a theory, it lends credence to that theory. When no other plausible theory can explain 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 was at one time another competing theory&mdash;the Newcomb-Hall exponent-fudging theory. That one didn't hold up for things other than Mercury. No other theory has come up explaining the phenomenon; GR has withstood the test of time. That goes a long way toward validating GR. There are many other observations and experiments, covering a wide variety of phenomena, described below&mdash;bending of light, gravitational time dilation, gravitational waves, geodetic precession, Shapiro effect, etc. It is these widely disparate observations, and the lack of any alternative theories explaining any of them, that lead people to say that GR is "experimentally validated".<br />
<br />
While the experimental tests for General Relativity are rather esoteric, those for Special Relativity are fairly straightforward. So much so that the Michelson-Morley experiment could be said to have single-handedly established the case for SR&mdash;the logical syllogism leading from Michelson-Morley to SR and the Lorentz transform was fairly clear once people saw it.<br />
<br />
When analyzing an experiment to see whether it validates a theory, one must be careful not to assume the theory in one's reasoning. For establishing Special Relativity with the Michelson-Morley experiment, the assumptions are:<br />
<br />
#Newtonian and Galilean mechanics.<br />
#Galilean relativity, that is, the notion that there is no absolute frame of reference.<br />
#The universality of the speed of light.<br />
#And, of course, proper calibration of the equipment.<br />
#:The third one was the observation that Michelson and Morley made.<br />
#:<br />
#:<br />
#:For the derivation of E=mc², these assumptions are added:<br />
#:<br />
#Conservation of energy.<br />
#Conservation of momentum.<br />
#:All of the assumptions listed above constitute SR.<br />
#:<br />
#:It would be nearly inconceivable to derive GR without SR. Gravitational time dilation, for example, requires a lot of information coming from SR. <br />
#:So, for the experiments listed below for GR, the assumptions are the 6 above plus:<br />
#The Equivalence Principle.<br />
#:So the experiments below for GR are really just establishing that the Equivalence Principle is valid, and that GR follows logically from that.<br />
<br />
The most famous experiment, and the one that is commonly cited in textbooks as the experiment that established the case for relativity,<ref>Though relativity did not actually originate from this experiment</ref> was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]]. This showed that all observers will obtain the same measured value for the speed of light (3x10<sup>8</sup> meters per second) no matter what their state of motion. This is the first of the two fundamental principles:<br />
#''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''<br />
#''The laws of physics are identical in all reference frames.''<br />
(The second is just a restatement of Galilean relativity, that is, the "common sense" that had been accepted for centuries.)<br />
A naive "common sense" interpretation of Galilean relativity would require that measurements of the speed of light (or anything else) by different observers would get results that differ by the observers' relative speeds, and hence that principle #1 can't be true. Special relativity fixes this apparent paradox.<br />
<br />
All of special relativity derives for these two principles, plus assumptions of exact conservation of momentum and energy in all cases.<br />
<br />
*At the end of Einstein's original 1905 paper on the subject<ref>http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?"</ref>, he speculates on the possibility that the equation <math>E = m c^2</math>, which would normally be very hard to verify, could be verified with the extremely high energies of the newly discovered phenomenon of radioactivity.<ref>This equation is not related to [[quantum mechanics]].</ref> In the 1910s, with the invention of the mass spectrometer, it became possible to measure masses of nuclei accurately. This led to the clearing up of the mystery of atomic masses not being exact integers,and strongly suggested the existence of a "mass defect" (or "packing fraction") consistent with the mass-energy equivalence. In the 1930s, experiments with known nuclear reactions showed a very accurate correlation between the masses of the nuclei involved and the energy released. See [[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]].<br />
<br />
*Another prediction of special relativity was time dilation in rapidly moving objects. This effect was most famously verified in the anomalously slow decay of relativistic cosmic muons.<ref>Some have suggested that other explanations are possible for this effect. We are trying to track this down.</ref> Time dilation has since been verified many times, and is routinely taken into account in all high-energy nuclear physics experiments, as in Hadron collision experiments.<ref>Experiments specifically designed to check dilation are rarely conducted any more.</ref><br />
<br />
As the 20th century progressed, tests of general relativity were proposed.<br />
<br />
*One important "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.<br />
<br />
:This created quite a problem&mdash;physicists by then were accustomed to having their theories check out very accurately. One proposal that was made, by Simon Newcomb and Asaph Hall, was that the exponent of the radius in the gravitational formula wasn't exactly 2. He showed that, by choosing an exponent of <math>2+\delta</math>, the precession, as a fraction of a full orbit per planet's year, is <math>\delta/2</math>. By setting <math>\delta</math> to .000000157, that is, an exponent of 2.000000157, Newcomb was able to get a precession of .000000078 revolutions per Mercury year, or 43 arcseconds per Earth year. Whatever value is chosen for <math>\delta\,</math>, it gives the same precession, per revolution, for all orbiting bodies, but gravitational effects from other planets diminish that effect the further the planet is from the sun.<br />
<br />
:The approximation given at the end of Einstein's 1916 paper <ref>http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_GRelativity_1916.pdf "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity"</ref> is <math>24 \pi^3\frac{a^2}{T^2c^2 (1-e^2)}</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where a is the semi-major axis, T is the length of the planet's year, and e is the eccentricity. A much simpler, but less accurate, approximation, designed to show how the precession relates to the planet's speed, is <math>3{}v^2/c^2</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where <math>v</math> is the planet's average orbital speed. These are just approximations. Getting an accurate value requires integrating the geodesic equation where Ricci's tensor is zero.<br />
<br />
:While Newcomb's theory, and general relativity, don't lead to closed-form solutions, both theories can be solved numerically to as much precision as one desires.<br />
<br />
:The following table shows some approximate parameters for the planets. Note that Mercury has the smallest orbit, and the fastest speed. Precession of planets other than Mercury is extremely hard to measure, but measurements of the actual anomalous precessions are in good agreement.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref><br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Planet<br />
!Period, seconds x 10<sup>6</sup><br />
!Semimajor axis, meters x 10<sup>9</sup><br />
!Speed, meters/second x 10<sup>3</sup><br />
!Gravitational force, Newtons per kilogram<br />
!Anomalous precession, arcseconds per (Earth) century, pure Newtonian mechanics<br />
!Anomalous precession, Newtonian with exponent of 2.000000157<br />
!Anomalous precession, general relativity<br />
!Measured anomalous precession (estimated uncertainty)<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref><br />
|-<br />
|Mercury<br />
|7.57<br />
|58.9<br />
|48<br />
|.039<br />
|0<br />
|43<br />
|43<br />
|43.5(5)<br />
|-<br />
|Venus<br />
|19.6<br />
|108<br />
|35<br />
|.011<br />
|0<br />
|16.6<br />
|9<br />
|8(5)<br />
|-<br />
|Earth<br />
|31.6<br />
|150<br />
|30<br />
|.006<br />
|0<br />
|10.3<br />
|4<br />
|5(1)<br />
|-<br />
|Mars<br />
|59.3<br />
|227.9<br />
|24<br />
|.0025<br />
|0<br />
|5.5<br />
|1.4<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Jupiter<br />
|374<br />
|778.4<br />
|13<br />
|.0002<br />
|0<br />
|0.87<br />
|0.07<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Saturn<br />
|929<br />
|1426<br />
|9.7<br />
|.00006<br />
|0<br />
|0.35<br />
|0.014<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Uranus<br />
|2651<br />
|2870<br />
|6.8<br />
|.000016<br />
|0<br />
|0.12<br />
|0.002<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Neptune<br />
|5200<br />
|4498<br />
|5.5<br />
|.000007<br />
|0<br />
|0.063<br />
|0.0008<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
: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, and using very accurate calculations rather than the approximations given above, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values, as of 2008, are:<br />
::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)<br />
::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)<br />
::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)<br />
::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992) <br />
::: (Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijpers 2008])<br />
:These error bars, and that of the general relativity prediction, all overlap.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|The Shapiro effect: A spacecraft signal dipping into a gravity well around the [[Sun]] is delayed slightly.]]<br />
<br />
*Another is the ''Shapiro effect'', involving time delay in radio signals passing through the gravity well of the Sun or a planet. Various spacecraft have confirmed this.<br />
<br />
*Another is ''gravitational time dilation''. This is an effect separate from the time dilation of special relativity. It was tested by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959. No Nobel Prize was awarded for this. Professor Pound had previously shared in the 1952 Nobel for his contributions to Nuclear Magnetic Resonance imaging.<br />
<br />
*Later in the 20th century, even more subtle phenomena were tested. One was the phenomenon of ''gravitational radiation'', or "gravitational waves". These waves are incredibly difficult to observe, and had never been observed until 2015. But extremely dense binary pulsars radiate gravitational waves with sufficient energy loss that, even though we can't detect the waves from Earth, we can see the effect of the energy loss from the radiation. The extreme precision of the timing of pulses from pulsars makes it possible to observe their energy loss with great accuracy. Observations by Hulse and Taylor of the pulsar pair known as B1913+16, found the energy loss to be consistent with the predicted radiation. This required choosing orbital parameters to be consistent with observation, in the same way that Kepler chose orbital parameters to fit observed planetary motion to his theory. The rotating pulsars have since moved such that Earth is now out of the beams. The assumptions required for this, in addition to those listed above, were that pulsars behave consistently. The 1993 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded for this.<br />
<br />
*In late 2015 (and announced in 2016), the LIGO instruments directly detected gravitational waves allegedly from colliding [[black hole]]s. See [[Gravitational waves]]. Unlike the waves from orbiting pulsars, that could only be detected by the loss of rotation energy, the waves from colliding black holes were strong enough to be detected directly. The assumptions required for this, in addition to those listed above, were that the objects emitting the radiation (generally believed to be black holes, of course) satisfy the Schwartzschild solution to relativistic mechanics. The 2017 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded for this.<br />
<br />
*In 2018 an observation of the 3-body system PSR J0337+1715, consisting of 2 white dwarfs and a pulsar, was consistent with (and hence tended to confirm) general relativity under conditions of extremely high gravity, to enormous precision. The assumptions made were the same as those listed above. One of the researchers stated "If there is a difference [between observation and the prediction of the Equivalence Principle], it is no more than three parts in a million."<ref>https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/einstein-s-theory-relativity-passes-its-toughest-test-yet-ncna889021</ref><br />
<br />
*In 2018, observations of a star orbiting the supermassive black hole "Sagittarius A*" at the center of our galaxy, showed that the light was stretched from the black hole's gravity just as relativity predicted. The star orbits Sagittarius A* at speeds of up to 16 million miles per hour. This was the first observation of such intense gravity.<ref>https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/einstein-s-theory-relativity-aces-its-first-black-hole-test-ncna896641</ref><br />
<br />
*An additional test of general relativity was performed with radio signals to the Cassini spacecraft.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/nature01997.html</ref><br />
<br />
*Two other effects, ''geodetic precession'' (also known as "de Sitter precession"), and ''frame dragging'' (also known as the "Lense-Thirring effect") were tested by the "Gravity Probe B" satellite early in the 21st century.<ref>http://prl.aps.org/accepted/L/ea070Y8dQ491d22a28828c95f660a57ac82e7d8c0</ref><ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306430</ref><ref>http://www.nap.edu/html/gpb/summary.html</ref><ref>http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/73870/title/Gravity_Probe_B_finally_pays_off_</ref><ref>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/</ref><ref>http://einstein.stanford.edu/</ref><ref>http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/the-gravity-probe-b-bailout</ref><ref>http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/06/nasa-concludes-gravity-probe-b-space-time-experiment-proves-e/</ref> The precision required to observe this was phenomenal. The results were announced on May 4, 2011.<br />
<br />
{{clear}}<!-- make the Shapiro picture not obliterate the next section heading --><br />
<br />
==Predicted consequences of the Theories==<br />
===Time dilation===<br />
<!-- NOTE [[Time dilation]] redirects to this section, so the section name should not be changed without amending that redirect. --><br />
[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]<br />
One important consequence of relativity is that an observer in one reference frame will not in general observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" at the same rate as one in the observer's own frame.<br />
<br />
In [[special relativity]], where acceleration and gravitational effects are ignored, this can be derived using basic geometry. The result is that clocks in all other [[inertial frames of reference]] other than the one you are in appear to tick slower. This can be summarised by the well known phrase "moving clocks run slow".<br />
<br />
However, with [[general relativity]], there are similar effects such as gravitational time dilation where a clockthat is higher in a gravitational field runs faster. Often the effects of relativity are negligible. However the high precision required for the [[GPS|GPS system]] needs relativistic corrections. The rest of this section will concern only [[special relativity]].<br />
<br />
The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:<br />
<br />
<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{u^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math> <br />
<br />
Where <br />
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.<br />
:<math>u</math> is the relative velocity between the [[inertial frame of reference|reference frames]].<br />
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x10<sup>8</sup> m s<sup>-1</sup>).<br />
<br />
Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying muon decay. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic particles]] with a short [[halflife]] of 1.53 microseconds. When produced by interactions of [[cosmic rays]] in the upper atmosphere, they have a speed around 0.994c. By putting muon detectors at the top (D<sub>1</sub>) and bottom (D<sub>2</sub>) of a mountain with a separation of 1900 m, 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The time taken for a muon to travel from D<sub>1</sub> to D<sub>2</sub> as measured by a stationary observer is:<br />
<br />
<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math><br />
<br />
The fraction of muons arriving at D<sub>2</sub> in comparison to D<sub>1</sub> was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)<br />
<br />
Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then<br />
<br />
<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math><br />
<br />
This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.<br />
<br />
Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:<br />
<br />
<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><br />
<br />
This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.<br />
<br />
Since either [[inertial frame of reference|reference frame]] is equally valid, from the [[muon]]'s point of view it sees the [[earth]] approach it at nearly the [[speed of light]]. Hence time passes faster for the muon (slower for an observer on the ground). This appears to be a contradiction. However, the [[muon]] sees the height of the mountain contracted and so travels a shorter distance in its own frame. See length contraction below.<br />
<br />
====Time Dilation and Creation Science====<br />
<br />
{{main|Starlight problem#Humphreys.27_model}}<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
====Derivation of Time Dilation====<br />
<br />
Time dilation is most easily derived using the [[Lorentz transformation]]s, though geometrical solution is also straight forward. Using the transformation relating [[time]] between two [[Inertial frame of reference|frames of reference]], <math>t</math> and <math>t'</math>. We can find the time difference between two events that occur at the '''same''' location in space. The events shall be called event one and event 2. This results in the equations:<br />
<br />
<math>t'_1 = \gamma \left(t_1 - \frac{ux}{c^2} \right) </math><br/><br />
<math>t'_2 = \gamma \left(t_2 - \frac{ux}{c^2} \right) </math><br />
<br />
where<br />
:<math>\gamma</math> is the [[Lorentz factor]]<br />
:<math>u</math> is the relative [[speed]] between [[Inertial frame of reference|reference frames]]<br />
:<math>c</math> is the [[speed of light]]<br />
<br />
Subtracting the top equation from the bottom produces the time between the events as measured in each reference frame, so:<br />
<br />
<math>t'_2 - t'_1 = \gamma (t_2 - t_1)</math><br />
<br />
This the equation for time dilation and is the same equation as earlier.<br />
<br />
===Length contraction===<br />
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 along the direction parallel to the relative motion.<br />
<br />
The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:<br />
<br />
<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{u^{2}}{c^{2}}} = \frac{l_0}{\gamma}</math><br />
<br />
Where <br />
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in its own [[inertial frame of reference|frame of reference]].<br />
:<math>u</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.<br />
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light <math>3 \times 10^8 </math> m s<sup>-1</sup><br />
:<math>\gamma</math> is the [[Lorentz factor]]<br />
<br />
====Derivation====<br />
<br />
Length contraction may be derived using the [[Lorentz transformation]]s as with time dilation. This time we use the equation for <math>x</math>. In this case, the time in the undashed frame must be the '''same'''. Following the same procedure as above we find that:<br />
<br />
<math>x'_2 -x'_1 = \frac{x_2 - x_1}{\gamma}</math><br />
<br />
This is the same as above with <math>x_2 - x_1</math> and <math>x'_2 - x'_1</math> being the lengths in the undashed and dashed frames respectively. Again, geometrical arguments may be used to achieve the same result.<br />
<br />
===Mass increase===<br />
<br />
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><br />
<br />
Under this view, the mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:<br />
<br />
:<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math><br />
<br />
Where <br />
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object measured by an observer in the same reference frame as the object.<br />
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.<br />
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x10<sup>8</sup> ms<sup>-1</sup>).<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
In recent years most physicists have shifted away from Einstein's original reliance on relativistic mass and his suggestion that mass increases{{Citation needed|date=January 2012}}. Instead, most physicists today teach that <br />
<br />
:<math>F=\frac{d}{d\tau} p</math> <br />
<br />
where<br />
:<math>p</math> is the momentum defined by <math>\gamma m v</math><br />
:<math>\gamma</math> is the standard Lorentz factor<br />
:<math>\tau</math> is the proper time<br />
<br />
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.<br />
The abandonment by physicists of the concept of relativistic mass, however, has the consequence of undermining the traditional claim under relativity that<br />
<br />
:<math>m - m_0 = \frac{E}{c^2}</math> <br />
<br />
also popularly known as<br />
<br />
:<math>E = m c^2</math><br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
<math>||p||^2 = -p_x^2-p_y^2-p_z^2+E^2 = m_0^2c^4</math> <br />
<br />
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>).<br />
<br />
== Relativity in everyday life ==<br />
<br />
Due to the small speeds and gravitational fields in normal life, relativistic phenomena such as time dilation and length contraction are rarely observed. However some things in everyday life can be explained using relativity:<br />
<br />
*GPS, the satellites experience time dilation due to the difference in speed and the strength of gravitational field between the satellite and the ground. This is corrected by daily synchronisation between the ground and the atomic clocks in the satellites.<br />
*While most elemental metals such as [[silver]], [[zinc]] and [[mercury]] have a silver/grey appearance, some metals like [[gold]] and [[copper]] do not. This difference can be explained using relativistic quantum mechanics.<ref>http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/</ref><br />
<br />
== Paradoxes ==<br />
<br />
The predictions of the theory of relativity throw up a number of apparent paradoxes and anomalies relating to the effects of time dilatation and length contraction. Whilst these paradoxes are consistent with the theory, they are contrary to everyday human experience and therefore can seem like impossibilities.<br />
<br />
=== The Twin Paradox ===<br />
<br />
The twin paradox is usually stated as a thought experiment involving two twins, one of whom is sent on a long journey in a spacecraft travelling at close to the speed of light, whilst the other remains on Earth. Time dilatation means that the travelling twin, on his return to Earth, is younger that the twin who has remained at home. However, because neither twin is in a special position - each being in an inertial frame of reference - the reverse must also be true, and so the twin remaining on Earth must be younger. Hence each twin is younger than the other - a paradox.<br />
<br />
The problem can be resolved in two ways. One is to examine the effects of General Relativity: to come back to Earth, the travelling twin must undergo acceleration in order to reverse his course, causing temporal effects which make him permanently the younger. Alternatively, it can be explained entirely using Special Relativity and noting that the twins are not in symmetrical situations: the one on earth has remained in a single inertial frame of reference, whilst the travelling twin has travelled in two.<ref>http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm</ref> Note that the length of the trip cannot be increased as to make the acceleration negligible.<br />
<br />
=== The Ehrenfest Paradox ===<br />
<br />
The Ehrenfest Paradox considers a rigid wheel or disc rotating a bout its axis at high speed (somewhat like a bicycle wheel spinning freely on its axle). The rim of the wheel travels at close to the speed of light and therefore undergoes length contraction, whereas the radius (the spokes, for the bicycle wheel) does not. Hence the circumference is no longer equal to 2<big><math>\pi</math></big>r, which is paradoxical.<br />
<br />
The apparent paradox was finally resolved in 1975 by the Norwegian scientist Øyvind Grøn.<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=224955</ref><br />
<br />
==Speed "paradox"==<br />
<br />
This is not a paradox. It arises from failure to know or understand the "speed addition" formula. The formula tells how fast each observer measures the speed of the other observer when they are both traveling toward each other, as seen by some outside observer, at speeds <math>u</math> and <math>v</math>. Under classical mechanics, the result is just <math>u+v</math>. But the formula under special relativity is<br />
<br />
<math>\frac{u + v}{1 + \frac{uv}{c^2}}</math><br />
<br />
This formula is a consequence of the Lorentz transform. It is a well known part of the basic undergraduate physics curriculum.<br />
<br />
So, if two spacecraft are approaching each other, each traveling at what an outside observer would measure as half the speed of light, a person ignorant of how relativity works might think they each see the other coming toward them at the speed of light. But the formula shows that they actually see each other moving at <math>\frac{4}{5}</math> of the speed of light.<br />
<br />
If <math>u</math> and <math>v</math> are both less than the speed of light, one can show that the result of the addition formula will be also.<br />
<br />
== Variable Speed of Light ==<br />
<br />
The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like c, the speed of light in a vacuum, 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><br />
<br />
"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><br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
This apparent change in speed can be explained, however, by noting that the constant c refers to the speed of light in a vacuum, i.e., when it is unimpeded. The speed of light when traveling through physical media is, in fact, variable.<br />
<br />
"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><br />
<br />
==Pending research==<br />
<br />
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><br />
<br />
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><br />
<br />
== Political aspects of relativity ==<br />
<br />
Some [[liberal]] politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, [[Democratic]] [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[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, acknowledging help by 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> <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. A dubious 1993 Nobel prize in physics was awarded Hulse and Taylor for supposedly finding the first evidence of gravitational waves in the orbital decay of the binary pulsar PSR1913+16.<ref>Weisberg, Joel M.; Taylor, Joseph H. (2003), "The Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16"", in Bailes, M.; Nice, D. J.; Thorsett, S. E., Proceedings of "Radio Pulsars," Chania, Crete, August, 2002, ASP Conference Series</ref> A close reading of the paper reveals that that is based heavily on assumptions in trying to retrofit the data to the theory.<br />
<br />
===Government Support for Relativistic research===<br />
The Federal Government has funded the building of two gravity wave detectors: The first to test the principle, and the second (upgrade) to actually perform measurements. As a result of this work, on February 11, 2016, the LIGO team reported successful detection of gravitational waves caused by the merging of two black holes.<ref>https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211</ref><br />
<br />
{{Relativity}}<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Attempts to prove E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]]<br />
*[[Gravitational waves]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Science]]<br />
<br />
==External links ==<br />
*[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]<br />
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com Relativity Science Calculator - Learn Special Relativity Mathematics ] The mathematics of special relativity presented in as simple and comprehensive manner possible within philosophical and historical contexts.<br />
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/history_of_time_clocks.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - Philosophic Question: are clocks and time separable?]<br />
*[http://www.relativityscience.com/twin_clock_paradox.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - Twin Clock Paradox]</div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:SamHB&diff=1446487User talk:SamHB2018-09-09T16:58:42Z<p>SamHB: I can't stop admins from posting obsessive-compulsive garbage on my talk page. or otherwise making Conservapedia look like a playpen for little children, but I can at least flag it.</p>
<hr />
<div>[[User talk:SamHB/Archive 1]]<br />
[[User_talk:SamHB/archive_2]]<br />
[[User_talk:SamHB/archive_3]]<br />
<br />
== Red telephone for Cons ==<br />
<br />
Cons: Thank you for dealing with the matter of [[Special:Contributions/Cal_Um]]. I know that you recognize that you are not an expert in relativity and know better than to get into the technical details of these discussions, and I appreciate that. (I wish more people recognized their limitations in this area; you can look up my recent controversies.) But this was a clear case of you recognizing that this guy was a troublemaker, and coming to my aid.<br />
<br />
And now I see that there has been another case, with [[Special:Contributions/Bobbillyman69]], taken care of by Andy. Vandals look at the Recent Changes log: "Oh, look! Relativity is on today's dinner menu!" We old-timers know all about that phenomenon.<br />
<br />
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:21, 7 March 2017 (EST)<br />
:Your welcome. I just happened to see it. I am guessing that for the foreseeable future that you and Andy are going to have to maintain the article as far as keeping it in accordance to compromise you two reached as far as the wording of the article. I don't think I will be of much help in the future. Again, I just happened to see that particular vandal.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:32, 7 March 2017 (EST)<br />
<br />
== A liberal is wanted for an online dialogue ==<br />
<br />
A liberal is wanted to have a single online dialogue. Please let them know at http://opposing-views.org/ if you are interested. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:15, 29 March 2017 (EDT)<br />
:Here is their contact page: http://opposing-views.org/contact/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:25, 29 March 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Well, I'm somewhat flattered, but significantly puzzled, by this. From looking at the web page, it looks like some kind of general liberal/conservative debate site. Currently focused on Obamacare, but with a wider outlook in general. My guess is that they are looking to increase their "contributor staff", particularly liberals, and they came to you. Or, more likely, you discovered them.<br />
<br />
::I'm not interested in contributing to such a site. And one thing puzzles me about it. There are '''thousands''' of liberal/conservative discussions/debates/controversies that take place every day. I find myself in such discussions several times per day. So these people want to create yet another one? With nothing noteworthy about it? They will be (already are) totally drowned out by the discussions already going on around the internet. I have about a dozen such web sites already bookmarked.<br />
<br />
::Now, about your choice of correspondent: I'm flattered, of course. But, when you needed to find a liberal friend, you came to ''Conservapedia''? Well, perhaps you contacted 97 other liberal acquaintances, besides EJamesW, AlanE, and myself. Actual liberals are a rare and endangered species here.<br />
<br />
::About my politics. You put in some question, that you seem to have deleted, asking whether it's really true that I'm a liberal. Well, compared to most people, especially the admins, here at CP, I am way far left of the norm. But relative to the outside world, I am rather middle-of-the-road. (I can't speak for EJamesW or Alan, but I would guess that they are similar.) I actually hold a lot of conservative and "traditional" views, though that doesn't seem to mean much at CP. For example, I am appalled that we have a President who is a serial adulterer and is on his third marriage. And, all through the cold war, I was on the side of freedom, not the side of the murderous Communist thugs who were out to conquer the world. I believe in American exceptionalism, and believed that the United States was a beacon of liberty to the whole world. I was relieved when the Soviet Union collapsed. But now Russia, the descendant of the Soviet Union, is ruled by Vladimir Putin, a descendant of the Communists, one who invades other countries and fairly openly has his political opponents murdered. I am appalled that our current President doesn't have a problem with this.<br />
<br />
::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:10, 1 April 2017 (EDT)<br />
:::OK. Thanks for letting me know your decision promptly. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:03, 1 April 2017 (EDT)<br />
::::I hope that it is possible to be a social conservative, a fiscal conservative, a political conservative, but still believe in rule of law, quantum mechanics, special relativity, and recent advances in machine learning/artificial intelligence. I never thought of SamHB as being a "liberal." [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 18:39, 1 April 2017 (EDT)<br />
OK. SamHB is less on the left spectrum that I thought. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:11, 2 April 2017 (EDT)<br />
:Doesn't help him though, does it, when some ''petty tyrant of the field'' decides to burn a conversation and give him a day off just because they can. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] ([[User talk:AlanE|talk]]) 00:24, 3 April 2017 (EDT)<br />
::Sigh. Semper idem. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 02:25, 3 April 2017 (EDT)<br />
:::Well, actually, he can't. No, to be precise, he ''can'', but he ''may not''. It's interesting that this happened shortly after I complained about abuse of block power [[Talk:Main_Page#Abuse_of_block_power|here]], and his reply seemed to acknowledge that it was not within his authority to block me&mdash;"That's not up to me at this point, but to one of the admins".<br />
<br />
:::I suspect that Northwest is probably feeling a bit guity about having violated his position of trust so blatantly by blocking someone over a content dispute. He may not realize that I am well respected by the admins; I've been around a while and they know me well. I've had some run-ins with Ed Poor, and he blocked me a couple of times for my abrasiveness, but we have since made peace. If Northwest looks at my block log, he will see that, until this week, none of my blocks involved "liberal POV". Mostly they were by people who had a rather checkered history of honesty, or for totally bogus claims of sockpuppetry with people I had never heard of.<br />
<br />
:::It's ironic that all this happened only 2-1/2 hours after I put the lyrics to ''America'' on my user page, specifically calling out the lines<br />
::::Confirm thy soul in self-control,<br />
::::Thy liberty in law!<br />
:::That was aimed at Donald Trump, who seems to have little self-control, little respect for law, little knowledge of American history and traditions, and little knowledge of, and respect for, the teachings of Jesus. But, as we say in this country: if the shoe fits, wear it.<br />
<br />
:::In a few days I may go over to his talk page and try to make peace. To try to convince him that we can make CP a better place if we all work together. And that it would be better not to toss around the words "liberal" and "leftist" with such wild abandon, because it just makes CP look less respectable and trustworthy to do so. And that one doesn't need to be a "leftist" to oppose murderous thug Vladimir Putin.<br />
<br />
:::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 22:38, 13 April 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::To make it short and to the point: You were warned before about your behavior on CP and you didn't want to listen (specifically regarding numbers 9 and 10 - ''especially'' number 10, which you violated several times before - at [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia|How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]), so that's how you got the day off. To read how both you and AlanE are talking about this, you both come off sounding like the liberal media pundits who complain about Donald Trump's travel ban against specific Islamic countries and his proposed illegal immigration ban. <br />
<br />
::::Your comment "And that it would be better not to toss around the words "liberal" and "leftist" with such wild abandon, because it just makes CP look less respectable and trustworthy to do so" also reflects exactly the type of things liberals say regarding CP (at the [[Liberal Style]] article, under Debate and rhetorical tactics):<br />
:::::"Like to use the phrase 'reflects poorly on the site' when talking about the liberal articles on Conservapedia."<br />
::::And numbers 5 and 6 under Liberalism in the same article:<br />
:::::"Calling the use of the term liberal when used in a derogatory context 'stupid'"<br />
:::::"Will often deny being a liberal, or will claim to be a 'true conservative', while spouting liberal and Democrat talking points and criticizing basic conservative beliefs and principles."<br />
::::And under Personal traits (again in the same article):<br />
:::::"Concealing one's liberal views rather than admitting them"<br />
::::But at day's end, this is still Conservapedia, ''not'' Liberalpedia. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 09:11, 14 April 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I could parody being a liberal, but when pressed to the wall all my inner contradictions and stupidity would come out, which might then just seal the deal. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]]</sup> 13:15, 13 April 2017 (EDT)<br />
:::I puzzled by several aspects of this. By "parody being a liberal" do you mean make fun of liberals with over-the-top humor, the way Stephen Colbert used to parody conservatives on his "Colbert Report"? (He shows his politics in a different way in his present show.) Or do you mean "Convincingly pretend to be a liberal, in a way that would trick one into believing that I am sincere?" Any intelligent and well-informed person (which you are) can do that. What do you mean by "my inner contradictions and stupidity would come out"? That you would have a hard time convincingly imitating the stupidity of liberals (liberals and conservatives both have consistency problems) so that your ruse would be unsuccessful? Or that your personal "contradictions and stupidity" would make you unable to do the job? And what do you mean by "seal the deal"? Succeed at your imitation? Or let others succeed at unmasking your attempts? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 22:51, 13 April 2017 (EDT)<br />
::::You covered all bases quite well. Parodying a liberal is not hard. If you come to a juncture where you're at a loss, and you have to think "''What would be the appropriate liberal response?''", you just say something nonsensical and contradictory, and it would pass. That's what I mean by seal the deal - there would be no question I'm a liberal speaking from the heart. [[Poe's Law]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]]</sup> 19:07, 14 April 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Vaping ==<br />
<br />
(No, I'm not referring to E-cigarettes.) Cons, please do not vape other people's talk pages, OK? I know that what you recently vaped here was insignificant, but please don't do it. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 18:14, 14 April 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== 9th anniversary ==<br />
<br />
Congratulations on your 9th anniversary here! Despite disagreements, edit wars, and 19 blocks, you are still around! I know a number of people don't agree with you on various topics, and even I disagree on some things you believe (most notably, macroevolution) but I appreciate that you have "stuck it out" and are still trying to make CP better. I also appreciate your insights on matters which have been influenced by things long before I was here. You were also the only one when I first joined who seemed to be making an effort to help me learn the ropes and how things work here (an effort I am trying to pass on to others now). Thanks for your efforts! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 11:49, 28 April 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Re: Claims of familiarity with CP guidelines ==<br />
<br />
Since you claim to be familiar with, and "well versed in", Conservapedia's guidelines (per your edit on [[User talk:1990'sguy|1990'sguy's talk page]]), here's a refresher from the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Member Accounts|Member Accounts]] section:<br />
<br />
* Conservapedia is a politically conservative, Christian encyclopedia project. We welcome opposing views, but are not interested in users who come here only to change articles to their ideology (''as you've insisted on doing with selected articles here as of late to change them to fit liberal POV, despite your claims otherwise - ed.''), or disrupt by constantly arguing on the article talk pages that we are "wrong" (''likewise - ed.''). Trolling comments, incivility and personal attacks can be removed from discussion pages.<br />
* We are not a debate forum, but a project. If you contribute, where you can, by adding substantive content, abiding by our Guidelines, we welcome you. If not, remember it is a big Internet, and you should go where you can support the goals of that project.<br />
<br />
[[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 18:37, 28 April 2017 (EDT)<br />
:Go write up a Popeye episode, son. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:43, 28 April 2017 (EDT)<br />
::This applies to you too, JohnZ, just so you know. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 19:13, 28 April 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== re: Liberal article ==<br />
<br />
I made some revisions to the [[liberal]] article to make it more accurate. And made some talk page edits indicating my reasons for the changes. For example, liberalism is not communism or Nazism. [[Attila the Hun]] was not a liberal, etc. <br />
<br />
If you want to review the article periodically to make sure my changes stick, it would be appreciated. <br />
<br />
I will pay you the courtesy of not having all or most liberals equated with Attila the Hun, Adolf Hitler, Mao or Stalin. I would ask you, however, to have the decency to not publicize private emails. <br />
<br />
By the way, I have been to Framingham, MA and got along with all the people I met. The people I met in Framingham did not give me Nazi salutes. And I did not see any Nazi flags on front lawns. Nor did I see any statues of Lenin while on Massachusetts thruways or while in Framingham. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:45, 9 May 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No Nazi flags? No Lenin statues? Not one? I guess Massachusetts is going soft. It must be all the political correctness or something. :-) I haven't seen any of that stuff in my trips to upstate New York either. Or in my trips to Iowa, Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Virginia, Alabama, Tennessee, or Missouri. What's the world coming to?<br />
<br />
:Seriously, I have noticed your recent attempts to inject some reasonableness into certain articles, and I appreciate that. (I'm serious this time!) In fact, I have recently noticed some rather decent articles here. But plenty of awful ones, like "liberal" and its ilk. I'm trying to improve the good ones, while ignoring the awful ones. But you need to know that my ability to "make changes stick" is very limited, though I'll try. See my block log, the history of the [[Pussy Riot]] article, and the last half of the "A liberal is wanted for an online dialogue" section above (as well as a paragraph below), to see what I'm talking about. So someone might undo anything I do (and block me in violation of policy). But I'll try.<br />
<br />
:I don't consider "not having all or most liberals equated with Attila the Hun, Adolf Hitler, Mao or Stalin" to be a courtesy to me personally. It's a courtesy to Conservapedia. But I appreciate it in any case.<br />
<br />
:About the email: Perhaps I should have redacted the email address, but I considered that the name was so nondescript that it must have been a garbage gmail account that you created. If you have gotten spam on that account, I apologize. However, I think the general content of emails can't be considered private. (Just ask Hillary Clinton!) And most of the message was just hawking your own pages right here at CP, along with one link to a vimeo clip to an old Star Trek thing.<br />
<br />
:Peace, my non-Nazi non-Communist friend, [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:45, 9 May 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Follow-up: I have redacted the email more thoroughly; I assume from Cons's vaping that that is what he wanted me to to. He can't possibly have wanted me to conceal the ''fact that he sent it'', since he openly announced it in advance on this page.<br />
<br />
::But if you do anything that goes against Conservapedia policy (as you've done repeatedly over time, and even recently), you ''will'' stand a chance of being blocked again (and despite what you otherwise think, blocking someone for violating CP policy is ''not'' "illegal"), so don't go thinking you can game the system just so you can get your way and get liberal POV imposed on this site. All you're doing every time you bring this up is that you're showing you prefer to ignore the rules of this site (and your history here, once again, proves that). [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 23:43, 9 May 2017 (EDT)<br />
:::SamHB, I look at your restoration and its skepticism that more than one person has edited using the User: Conservative account. <br />
<br />
:::The edit log shows that the User: Conservative account created the [[Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals]] article. The edit log shows that the User: Conservative account created the [[Gay bowel syndrome]] and [[Homosexuality and Parasites]] articles. No intelligent person believes that these articles are the work of one person. The footnoting style is radically different for the [[Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals]] article and frankly the article lacked machismo as soon as it used the alphabet soup of LGBTQ. Frankly, I don't even know what all those letters stand for. Why is the Q even used? It seems redundant. <br />
<br />
:::You still not reconciled this blaring incongruently which was even noticed by a non-fan of the User: Conservative account. There must be some reason why you are not coming up with a reasonable explanation of the incongruity? What is it? <br />
<br />
:::By the way, the explanation is so simple. More than one person has edited using the User: Conservative account.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:45, 30 May 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== re: "I'm going to organize this in broad categories. That's the right thing to do for articles about scientists" ==<br />
<br />
Bill Nye is an engineer. He is not a scientist. Stop engaging in credential inflation! I realize that evolutionism is exceedingly weak. But try to not engage in desperation tactics and make efforts to control yourself. :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:46, 1 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
:Well, it's the right thing for articles about science popularizers too.<br />
<br />
:Sorry, I should have said "science popularizers". The fact that he's an engineer is irrelevant.<br />
<br />
:I think the suggestion that I need to make efforts to control myself is a little harsh for such an infraction as calling him a scientist instead of a science popularizer. It doesn't strike me as anywhere near as great a failure of self-control as spending years pretending to be multiple people, or spending years making tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands? millions?) of edits, deletions, renamings, cross-links, and ineffably pointless changes to image sizes, mostly for an utterly obsessive corpus of foolishness.<br />
<br />
:But we're still friends. I enjoy sparring with you. And I've got more stuff to do in reply to your previous edit on this page. But first, I need to change an image size.<br />
<br />
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 18:18, 1 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== talk page second archive ==<br />
<br />
You user talk page is insanely long. I think you are overdue for [[User talk:SamHB/archive 2]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:03, 2 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:You're right. Done. Thank you. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 18:12, 3 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
== Nice job ==<br />
I read your user page archives - really entertaining, and they made me realized how wretched I was to write articles for Cons, even if they did get on the Main Page. Please, don't stop believing in relativity. Hold onto that feeling.--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 16:34, 4 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== re: well-intentioned and level-headed people ==<br />
<br />
You wrote: "You need to know that user "Conservative" ''is not in any way typical of the people we have here''. There are a lot of well-intentioned and level-headed people here, and you could have been a member of that community."<br />
<br />
:First of all, User: Conservative is not merely one editor. So your petty personal attacks are lamer than you think. It is readily apparent that User: Conservative is more than editor. For example, the glaring topical/footnoting/writing style differences in the [[Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals]] article and some of the other homosexuality articles by the User: Conservative account. You have never explained these glaring differences. <br />
<br />
:Secondly, you have yet to find a single factual error in any of the articles written by the User:Conservative account. You merely dislike some of the articles because they conflict with some of your errant/miscreant, liberal notions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:29, 5 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
:::Actually, I've been meaning to rip you to shreds, yet again, over that weird fantasy of yours. But there's usually something more urgent to do. Especially now, with the "abcqwe" issue. Trying to keep him on board is much more important than yet another go-around with you. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:30, 5 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
::Your name is <name redacted>, everybody who has ever posted on this site knows your name is <name redacted>, people who died 100 years ago know your name is <name redacted>. People who will not be born until the 22nd century knows your name is <name redacted>. Insult your own intelligence(not hard to do I know) but the rest of us are not falling for it.<br />
:::Actually, that's not my name, assuming that you were referring to me (SamHB) when you wrote "you" above. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else.<br />
:::In any case, it is considered poor form to "out" or "dox" someone on a wiki. And the identity and personal info about the person you are perhaps referring to are well known. I suspect that you are about to be blocked, if you haven't already been blocked as I write this. And what you wrote above will likely be vaped, though I will restore it (with the name redacted) if that happens. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:30, 5 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
::::<br />
::::SanHV, why is the footnoting for [[Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals]] different from many other [[User: Conservative]] articles?<br />
<br />
:::: I found out this month what the Q is in the acronym LGBTQ stands for. Why does the article [[Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals]] use the term LGBTQ, but the other homosexuality articles created by the User: Conservtive account not use that term?<br />
:::::Probably because you are a klutz with your keyboard, as indicated by your spelling of "Conservtive". It stands for "queer", by the way.[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:59, 9 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Is the term LGBTQ one that I would likely use? For example, how often does the word "gay" appear in Conservapedia's homosexuality articles?<br />
:::::I wouldn't know. I'd have to read them. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:59, 9 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Is the term "persecution of homosexuals" one that I would likely use? Why was there an internal battle within the User: Conservative account about the title of the article [[Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals]]? For example, why was the title of that article changed/moved?<br />
:::::Because you like to do that kind of thing, as anyone who looks at your contributions knows. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:59, 9 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Liberals dominate the field of psychology. Do liberals excel in the field of psychology in order to be able to discern that more than one editor has used the User:Conservative account?<br />
:::::I doubt it. I doubt that, by and large, they give a hoot about the size of your "collective". [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:59, 9 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
::::If liberals do excel in the discipline of psychology, why do so many psychology experiments and journal articles have an inability to be replicated? See: [http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248 Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test], ''Nature'', August 27, 2015<br />
<br />
::::RobS, 1990sguy and Karajou have been told privately that more than one editor has used the User: Conservative account. There was an attempt to make one of these editors an editor of the User: Conservative account, but Aschlafly would not permit it.<br />
:::::Can you send me the email in which Andy said that? And, by "one of these editors" do you mean one of RobS, 1990sguy and Karajou? All you would have to do is privately send them your CP password. Andy would not know. In fact, if you mail me your password, at sam4557@gmail.com, I could become a member of your collective! The "sockpuppet" rule prohibits one person from having multiple CP accounts, but there's no rule about giving out your password. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:59, 9 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Lastly, you couldn't rip a wet paper bad to shreds, let alone rip of member of the User: Conservative account to shreds. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 02:04, 6 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
By the way, a 2006 international survey reported that 30% of the Swiss reject evolution which is one of the highest national percentages in Europe.[http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Home/Archive/Swiss_drag_knuckles_accepting_evolution.html?cid=70292] [[Switzerland]] has one of the very highest standards of living in Europe. <br />
<br />
Denmark has one of the highest rates of belief in evolution in Europe (See: Jon D. Miller; Eugenie C. Scott; Shinji Okamoto (11 August 2006). "Public Acceptance of Evolution". Science. 313 (5788): 765–766.). <br />
<br />
The Swiss are known for yodeling.<br />
::I'm extremely fascinated, delighted, and enchanted to hear that. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:59, 9 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
The Danes are known for bestiality! A 2015 ''Jerusalem Post'' article indicates "[[Copenhagen]] has for long been the bestiality capital of Europe and has attracted many tourists mainly visiting to have sex with animals. Legislation against this practice was only enacted this year."[http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Suggestions-for-the-anti-Semitic-slurs-list-434293] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 02:28, 6 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
:There are some worthwhile projects that I want to accomplish. I am not going to continue this latest battle between us. It doesn't make sense to respond to every slight someone directs your way. I am moving on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:33, 6 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
::I regret using the word miscreant above. It wasn't necessary.<br />
:::No hard feelings. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 18:40, 6 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I also agree with you that it would have been nice to retain the editor who recently departed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:57, 6 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
::::What??? To whom were you referring??? The one who was "showboating" and annoying Karajou and VargasMilan2 [sic]? I assumed you thought it was abcqwe, and I could find no evidence that he communicated with Karajou or VargasMilan. Who was it? Seriously, I'm curious. I'd like to know whether it was someone that I also disliked. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 18:40, 6 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
:::I just discovered that someone blocked [[User:Abcqwe]]. He made a number of posts to talk pages that irritated people. It seems as if he was spoiling for a fight and/or trying to gain attention. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:13, 6 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
:::::You just discovered that now?????? Really? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 18:40, 6 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
::::For the record, he blocked himself indefinitely, but I changed the block to five years because indefinite blocks are problematic. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 17:23, 6 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
:::::OK. He was a provocateur at the end. No great loss. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:57, 6 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
::::::But, was it necessary to delete his user and talk pages? Or is this just CP policy? --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 18:24, 6 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
:::::::No, it is not policy. Please restore them. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 18:40, 6 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
In terms of webmaster best practices, deleting low value pages is a beneficial thing to do. In 2017, Conservapedia is going to delete abandoned user pages and their respective talk pages. Andy has given the green light about this matter and he is not changing his mind about it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:00, 6 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
::It is a "best practice" only because you have the technical permission, as an administrator, to do whatever you please. You can delete whatever you want, vape whatever you want, and block whomever you want, at any time. You even burned down ''this'' page on 10 January, 2015. I was never under the illusion that you would honor my request to restore his pages. And I can't help noticing that, shortly after you explained this "best practice", you deleted a few pages just to make the point. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:59, 9 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
:Re: annoying Karajou and VargasMilan2 - see: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&diff=1351118&oldid=1350637 He sometimes signed his posts "Nate". As far as VargaMilan2, see conversation I moved to the community portal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:23, 6 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
::I think [[User:Abcqwe]] began to be more of a provocateur after I posted this article [[American liberalism and 21st century political losses]]. Given that he is an American liberal, it probably triggered his backlash/bitterness/resentment.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:33, 6 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
:::I don't think Abcqwe annoyed Karajou or VargasMilan while he actually edited. They wrote what they did in response to the news that he was leaving. On top of that, it seems that Abcqwe uses a lot of sarcasm and sarcastic humor, and I think his "confession" displayed some of it. He also seems to have overexaggerated. Personally, I think he should have been more frank in his post, and I don't think his sense of humor helped at all. Many people probably got the impression that he was a parodist/liberal, while I think it is more believable that he was a more moderate person who originally joined in good faith. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 22:06, 6 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
:::I seem to be the invisible man regarding Abcque. I was the one who tried to keep a lid on his vandalism. Did I need help? Yes. Did I ask for it?Yes. Did I get any from the lads wallowing in their anti liberal groupthinkfest, not giving a stuff for truth? No I did not. Do I still think that CP should be vehicle for information for homesckoolers? Yes. Is it ? No. Do I give a damn? Strangely, yes I do.<br />
::::Sorry Sam. I have tried other forums to change an article title to allow me to correct the article. I want [[Joseph Belloc]] changed to [[Hilaire Belloc]]. Its simple really but the lads are too busy doing what they like doing. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] ([[User talk:AlanE|talk]]) 03:08, 9 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Border fence for the unfree state of Massachusetts ==<br />
<br />
[[File:Prison.jpg|thumbnail|200px|center|Border fence for the unfree state of [[Massachusetts]] designed to keep people from leaving the state. See also: [[Essay: Free States Movement|Free States Movement]] ]]<br />
Actually, I haven't seen any fences like that, except at MCI<ref>Massachusetts Correctional Institution</ref> Concord, where I go to visit my cousin (you know, the one who is a member of your collective; they let people edit Conservapedia from the slammer), who is serving a 5-year stretch for not being a [[Essay: Professor PZ Myers fails his applied biology course#Addendum|"svelte Bible believing young earth creationist like Chuck Norris"]].<br />
{{clear}}<br />
<br />
==Joking about TAR==<br />
<br />
Question: Will TAR return? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:24, 8 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
:I will consider it ''only'' if he agrees to completely stop link-spamming and adding categories. If not, I or someone else will be forced to block him. I agree that he made some good changes, but the bad far outweighed the good. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 15:00, 8 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
::I don't believe TAR is coming back. I was merely joking. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])<br />
<br />
That joke is not the least bit funny. I doubt that 1990'sguy appreciated the humor. As I'm sure you recall, during the period when TAR was being removed from the site (which is chronicled at [[User_talk:DavidB4#Cleaning_up_after_the_blocked_users]] and [[User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive60#Re:_Cleanup_work_post_TheAmericanRedoubt]], you repeatedly implied that you were somehow in private communication with him, and that, because of this, you could reassure everyone that he had no intention of coming back. But since you have a reputation for pretending to be in secret communication with people, just as you pretend to be multiple people, no one believed you. So Andy had to revoke his rights.<br />
<br />
I don't believe he's coming back either, but not because of some private communication. It's because he would be shown the door instantly.<br />
<br />
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:33, 9 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
:At this point, I really am not concerned if you believe I have had various private conversations with people or if you believe more than one person has edited using the [[User: Conservative]] account. <br />
<br />
:It is probably best if we keep our communications cordial, but very limited in the future.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:34, 10 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::OK. The "ripping you to shreds" that I had planned will not occur. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:31, 11 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
:::A few points:<br />
<br />
:::1. You called my liar and I have never lied at this wiki. More than one person has edited using the User: Conservative account. You may not accept this fact as being true, but that is your problem and not mine. Aschafly is certainly aware that the User: Conservative account has had more than one editor use it and Karajou is aware as well. I did a checker user on the User: Conservative account and at least one other editor has used the account in the last 3 months. <br />
<br />
:::2. I should have been more cordial in my last communication with you. After all is said and done, I have decided to communicate far less on talk pages due to competing priorities. So any absence of communication with you isn't personal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:36, 11 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== From warrior to diplomat ==<br />
<br />
"Warrior to Diplomat<br />
<br />
In his previous roles, Harald had focused primarily on marshaling the troops to defeat the competition. Now he found himself devoting a surprising amount of time to influencing a host of external constituencies, including regulators, the media, investors, and NGOs. His support staff was bombarded with requests for his time: Could he participate in industry or government forums sponsored by the government affairs department? Would he be willing to sit for an interview with an editor from a leading business publication? Could he meet with a key group of institutional investors? Some of these groups he was familiar with; others not at all. But what was entirely new to him was his responsibility not just to interact with various stakeholders but also to proactively address their concerns in ways that meshed with the firm’s interests. Little of Harald’s previous experience prepared him for the challenges of being a corporate diplomat.<br />
<br />
What do effective corporate diplomats do? They use the tools of diplomacy—negotiation, persuasion, conflict management, and alliance building—to shape the external business environment to support their strategic objectives. In the process they often find themselves collaborating with people with whom they compete aggressively in the market every day.<br />
<br />
To do this well, enterprise leaders need to embrace a new mind-set—to look for ways that interests can or do align, understand how decisions are made in different kinds of organizations, and develop effective strategies for influencing others."[https://hbr.org/2012/06/how-managers-become-leaders]<br />
<br />
Harald made the transition. The Apostle Paul made the transition. I wonder if someone else can? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:50, 11 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I '''think''' you are making some good points in what you say, and it's certainly true that my ways of interacting with people on the internet (and in real life too) could use some improvement. But I'm having a hard time following your examples. I don't know who "Harald" is/was. Some ancient Nordic king? I know who the Apostle Paul was, but I don't see his situation as being relevant to business, the media, investors, or NGO's. And my situation isn't relevant to those things either. At least you didn't bring in Sun-Tzu. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 17:20, 19 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
::SamHB, I was merely saying that I have decided to be more diplomatic.<br />
:::Oh! I was reading way too much into what you were saying. (I often do that.) So you were saying that '''you''' want to "make the transition" and do a better job of persuasion and conflict management. OK, I will try to do the same.<br />
:::As an example, I will try to calm GinnyS down. I think she may be cruisin' for a bruisin'. I will try to explain that you are an acquired taste, and that personal attacks are ''never'' allowed. And I'll try to make that same point to JohnZ, for when he comes back. He is in a situation that is similar in some ways but different in other ways. I think that, due to my longevity, I have gotten a certain amount of respect among the young-uns, and I can use that respect to get them to behave better.<br />
:::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:00, 30 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::As an aside, as far as Trump, I have never seen a president attacked as much as Trump and with such venom. On the other hand, I have never seen a president counterpunch as much too (and sometimes in a very personal way). It is nothing new though. Burr/Hamilton had many exchanges of words before their duel. And Lincoln was viciously attacked by his critics if memory serves. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:22, 29 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
:::Trump deserves every bit of what he gets. He knows next to nothing about American government, institutions, history, or traditions, seems to know very little about Christianity (though I realize I'm suppose to remove the plank from my own eye before making accusations like that), and seems to know very little about the Christian notions of generosity, forgiveness, humility, and contrition. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:00, 30 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== If you know of any good faith editors who have edited in the last 5 years and... ==<br />
<br />
If you know of any good faith editors who have edited in the last 5 years and they are not on my list at [[User talk:Wikignome72]], please let me know. <br />
<br />
I relied on: the recent changes list, my memory, user talk page edits for some of the active or formerly active editors. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:11, 19 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Actually, yes, I could contribute a lot of names of people to keep. As you may know, I do a lot of "homework" or "research" here at CP, and I have a pretty good idea of who's who. Perhaps second only to you. But I think it's an unnecessary exercise to delete the old pages. And I sure hope your current deletion binge (well, deletion suggestion binge) isn't a reaction to my complaining, above, that you should not have deleted abcqwe's page.<br />
<br />
:By the way, I have been trying to make an addition to Wikignome72's page, saying essentially the same thing, for over 3 hours, getting edit conflicts each time. I'll wait until you come up for air.<br />
<br />
:If you actually want me to come up with a list of people that should be protected, I could do that. I would probably do it by going through the edit histories of all the articles that I have worked on and think are good, and noting everyone who contributed (who isn't a jerk).<br />
<br />
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 17:20, 19 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Some people our friend ought to keep ==<br />
<br />
First preliminary, your quizzes are cute.<br />
<br />
Second preliminary, I really think he ought to be welcomed, even if he is just you. I don't know why you keep deleting my attempts to welcome him. I like to keep up the pretense that he's a real person.<br />
<br />
Third preliminary, I had no idea there was so much garbage in the user base. But I hope you don't think you are saving disk space; you aren't. Nothing ever really goes away in a computer database. Except "vaping", which you aren't doing.<br />
<br />
I see the purge is in full swing. I've gone over the list, and there are a few people I recognize as having been, one way or another, significant people in CP's history. I'd like you (him, her) to consider restoring them. Some people left in anger (and at least one had some serious criticism of you personally.) But they are nevertheless part of our history. People won't know how we got here if they can't see our history. I've argued in the recent past that we should keep the "Parthian shot" of someone who has been blocked, so that, if they try to come back, we will know why they were kicked out and why they should not be allowed back in. But it's more than that. We need to remember the conflicts that have gone on in the past. Well, some of them; many people were just losers and deserve to be forgotten. Heck, isn't there a page called something like "Examples of censorship by the 'tolerant'"? I haven't looked at it lately, but we may be damaging it. We need to keep at least some of those examples around, don't we?<br />
<br />
So here are a few people I've found so far. Is it possible to bring them back? I think it is, unless they have been "vaped", which I don't think they have been.<br />
*DanH Wasn't he a sysop and well-respected person? Wasn't he the chess player? I may misremember the details [I sure do!], but he was an important part of our history. I seem to have confused him with ...<br />
*DeanS Wasn't he a sysop and well-respected person? Wasn't he the chess player? And the Mormon who was concerned about whether there would be intolerance of Mormon? (Answer: none at all.) Wasn't he the person whose wife died? Wasn't he the geologist whose user name was originally "crocoite" (an interesting mineral), and then changed it in order to comply with the username policy? I may misremember the details, but he was an important part of our history.<br />
*MatthewQ I see there's been some back-and-forth on this. He was a somewhat interesting science contributor.<br />
*StaceyT Yeah, she was unhappy. But we need to see what sorts of things made people unhappy.<br />
*Ymmotrojam He was a big player at one time.<br />
*Coolguy Yes, he was recent, and p*ss*d some people off and was shown the door. But we need to see that history.<br />
*And, of course, you won't delete Philip J Rayment, right?<br />
There are others that haven't been deleted (yet).<br />
<br />
Did you know that DeborahB created her account when Conservapedia was only 6 days old? She was a true "founding mother".<br />
<br />
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:20, 20 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
:I will restore DanH. <br />
<br />
:MathewQ mere had "useful links" on his user page so there is no need to restore that, but I kept his user talk page. <br />
<br />
:StacyT was contentious and probably a sock of a man if I recall. Definitely a loser. Not restoring. <br />
<br />
:Ymmotrojam deleted his own user page and talk page. I am respecting his wishes and keeping those pages deleted.<br />
<br />
:Coolguy was a person who was not willing to engage in dialogue. Like many on the left, he was ignorant of history and/or wanted to engage in revisionism. He just wanted to pontificate. There are plenty of reasons to believe that various founding fathers were not Christians. But when you look at the state constitutions and various other important historical considerations, it is very apparent that Coolguy was pushing a very ignorant/false narrative of American history. I not going to bother to restore his user page or talk page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:31, 20 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Re: restoration of DanH and PJR. Looking into other restoration ==<br />
<br />
The user pages of [[User:DanH]] and [[User:Philip J. Rayment]] (PJR) were so boring, it gave me an excuse to delete them. But I really shouldn't have deleted them. And I just discovered that TK made those pages boring with his revisions to those pages. <br />
<br />
So I restored those pages to their former glory. I did add a link to my atheism article from PJR's talk page by adding a bracket around his use of the word "atheists" on his user page. I am still in communication with PJR and his wife, and I know that PJR would not mind my small change. <br />
<br />
I am looking into the DeanS restoration. I did not delete it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:22, 20 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
:[[User:DeanS]] user page history has been restored along with TK's replacing of the blanking by DeanS with a retired template. The retired template looks better. I don't think DeanS would have minded. <br />
<br />
:DeanS deleted his user talk page. I am going to keep it deleted. <br />
<br />
:I think DeanS left due to ill health, but it could have been due to disputes with evangelical Christians on the website (He was a Mormon) or some other reason. I have no idea. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:32, 20 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
::As far as DeanS, I did a little detective work and restored his talk page to the version I think he would have wanted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:48, 20 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
:::Thanks for attending to these details. As far as leaving the last version of something up, when it just says "retired", there's nothing wrong with that, as long as data squirrels like myself can look through the history and see what led to the retirement. That's what we should have&mdash;a historical record. (Excuse me, an historical record.) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 15:34, 20 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
::::I think PJR left due to a battle over gun owner rights/public safety controversies. But perhaps that was merely the final straw. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:41, 20 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
I restored the user page of [[User:JacobB]] as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:58, 20 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
::I removed the striked out text from PJR's user page. It looked sloppy and I didn't see any real purpose in it. Next time I talk to PJR, I will see if he is fine with the edit. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:32, 20 June 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Taking some of your advice==<br />
<br />
Greetings, Cons!<br />
<br />
The long message you left for me yesterday was extremely interesting. I had to go back a long way (June 29, 2015) to find what you were referring to and refresh my memory of the issue. It's too bad that yesterday's message was lost in a wiki server malfunction.<ref>This seems to happen a lot with your contributions.</ref> The "advice" that you seem to have been referring to was that you should direct your persuasive energies into ways that are more likely to have an actual effect on people, such as human interaction, rather than writing Conservapedia articles. And you mentioned "opportunity cost", that is, the cost of one approach versus another in terms of actual payoff.<br />
<br />
You ended with your usual argument against evolution, giving two web references. The first was to a page that had a religious web site in its name. As you know, I totally ignore any arguments about scientific topics appearing in religious web sites or religious publications. If one can't make an argument about a scientific topic (as opposed to, say, a topic of morality or ethics), without saying "because the Bible says so", I'm not interested. <br />
<br />
The second web site was [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohp4dmkOmKE this]. So I had to look. Though it was clear right from the start (though not from the URL itself) that it was a religious web site&mdash;it was from the PNN News and Ministry Network, and it also had front-page references to http://www.hickoryhammockbaptist.org and http://creation.com. It had five "questions for the evolution believer". I had to sit through a guy with a very irritating voice listing the questions. (Aren't there 15 questions elsewhere? This guy isn't even trying!)<br />
:The first was about abiogenesis. We all know that the question of abiogenesis, while interesting and having no known solution at present (or perhaps ever), lies outside of the issues of evolution/Biblical creation and young-Earth/old-Earth cosmology. So I had to sit through 55 seconds (opportunity cost!) of that nonsense.<br />
:The second one was about "language", making the point that the DNA code satisfies all the accepted criteria for being a language, yet is unique among languages in that it was not developed by humans. (Not true, by the way.) And so somehow this meant that evolution must not have happened. Huh?<br />
:It went downhill rapidly from there. The third was about sexual reproduction, and how "wasted energy" involved in this meant that evolution could not be correct. Or something. I stopped listening.<br />
All things considered, sort of fun. But now, if you'll excuse me, I need to take your advice about taking my advice, and consider the opportunity cost of replying to you on my talk page. So long for now. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:19, 7 July 2017 (EDT)<br />
::Essentially, I said that I am going to use my time better so I have a greater positive impact in life. Recently, I am more on track except for a comment on main page talk today. <br />
<br />
::In July of 2017, I will be working on a Conservapedia related project. But you will see no edits being performed by the User: Conservative account in relation to this project. <br />
<br />
::“Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate.” - [[Sun Tzu]] <br />
:::Well, that's some advice I am '''not''' going to take. But if you think it works for you (I disagree) go right ahead. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 10:58, 8 July 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::此（译注：用间）兵之要，三军之所恃而动也 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:12, 7 July 2017 (EDT)<br />
::::I sent you a sour email recently about you publishing one of my emails recently. Looking back, I shouldn't have sent it. <br />
<br />
::::No hard feelings. Enjoy your summer. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:45, 10 July 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
OK, I got the email. I want to apologize for any behavior that may have led you to believe I can't be trusted with private information. Let me assure you that I am a trustworthy person when I know what information is being kept confidential.<br />
<br />
The email that you are referring to is presumably the message listed above somewhere (or maybe it's been archived by now), in which I divulged both the sender and the content. Of course I divulged the fact that you sent the message--you had already said publicly that you were going to send it. I assumed that the email name of the sender was not secret because it looked like a "throwaway" name of the sort that people often create. In fact, you have sent other emails to people with various names. I assumed that you don't consider them secret. If I harmed you by revealing the name, I apologize.<br />
<br />
After you complained, I redacted everything in the email listed above except the content. I believed that the content was typical of the things you write all over the place at Conservapedia. It was largely references to your various articles, as is your writing style. If the particular content of that message was something you wanted protected, I apologize.<br />
<br />
If you wish to vape the redacted message above on this page, go ahead; I won't complain or restore it. (As you know, I usually oppose vaping, especially on users' talk pages, and sometimes restore the vaped material.)<br />
<br />
So I need to know just how much secrecy you desire:<br />
*Do you want me not to reveal even the fact of having received a message? Even if you said, here on this talk page, that you are going to send it or have sent it?<br />
*Do you want me not to reveal the user ID of the sender?<br />
*Do you want me not to reveal the content?<br />
*Do you want me not even to say that I have replied, or otherwise give any general information about what was discussed?<br />
At the risk of violating the last point, I suspect that the project you referred to (which you also mentioned above on this page) is something I wouldn't be interested in. I know that, in the past, your projects have been things like an anti-evolution pamphlet. Now if you want to collaborate on an anti-creationist pamphlet (you know, things like "15 questions that creationists can't answer") by all means, sign me up.<br />
<br />
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:07, 13 July 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:At Conservapedia, I am not going to discuss any of the off wiki activities of the editors who use the User: Conservative account. This is the simplest solution to potential problems caused by the intolerant left. <br />
<br />
:The simplest solution to the email issue is for me to no longer send you any emails. But perhaps I will change my mind on this matter. I can certainly pray about this matter. If we were to communicate privately it would probably be Skype communication due to constraints upon my time. I am going to strongly endeavor to be more efficient with my time and communicating via email can be more time intensive. But you have indicated that you are not interested in Skype communications so in all likelihood, I doubt there will be future private communications between us. <br />
<br />
:Again, no hard feelings. I will certainly endeavor to keep my communications with you at Conservapedia cordial. And again, enjoy your summer. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:43, 13 July 2017 (EDT)<br />
::I just sent you an email. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 07:43, 15 July 2017 (EDT)<br />
:::I sent you an additional email. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:20, 15 July 2017 (EDT)<br />
::::I will keep my promise of confidentiality. So let me just say that there has been some traffic on the sam4557 email account of late. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 09:29, 15 July 2017 (EDT)<br />
:::::I just sent you another email. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:10, 15 July 2017 (EDT)<br />
::::::I sent you a small request via email. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:34, 15 July 2017 (EDT)<br />
== re: polishing up my grammar and writing skills ==<br />
<br />
I sent you a private email. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:32, 31 July 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==For Cons==<br />
I normally find "listicles" ("The 15 worst beaches", etc.) on the internet to be extremely stupid. But [https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/whats-hot/38-things-no-man-over-40-should-own/ss-AAoKipb?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=referral#image=2 this one] was actually entertaining. I especially liked [https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/whats-hot/38-things-no-man-over-40-should-own/ss-AAoKipb?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=referral#image=9 item number 8]. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:33, 2 August 2017 (EDT)<br />
::I am cutting back on entertainment. I made a couple of promises to people that require stricter time management. <br />
<br />
::In terms of time management, I shouldn't have done any Conservapedia editing today. But I decided to get back on track. <br />
<br />
::"Top performers make mistakes, commit errors, and get off track just like everyone else. The difference is that they get back on track as quickly as possible." - How to Build a New Habit: This is Your Strategy Guide by James Clear[http://jamesclear.com/habit-guide]<br />
<br />
::There are so many internet cat videos, but so little time. :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])<br />
I did a little bit of additional editing to reflect some significant changes relative to some of the articles I have created in the past. But I really shouldn't have done that. <br />
<br />
But I am getting back on track in terms of some important promises. <br />
<br />
However, I will not be editing Conservapedia for 66 days (see this interesting study: [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.674/full How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world]). You can hold me to this. On October 7, 2017, I will let you know how things went in terms of new habit creation and bad habit cessation.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:34, 2 August 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I find it odd that all the many members of the User:Conservative account are all going to be busy for the next 66 days, is this an admission that there is only one of you? Listed in the differences between Wikipedia and Conservapedia is the respect for a users talk page. So what is this about?<br />
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:SamHB&curid=133755&action=history]<br />
Not a lot of respect for the rules here, but then again the rules have never applied to you have they?--[[User:JoshO|JoshO]] ([[User talk:JoshO|talk]]) 16:12, 2 August 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Those 66 days just flew by. If you cannot model your habits on your own, perhaps you should try to get help from others? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 06:07, 10 August 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Are you forgetting that more than one editor uses the User:Conservative account and it's the specific editor who said he was taking time off that would be doing it? [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 06:30, 10 August 2017 (EDT)<br />
:::AugustO, I am going to get back on track. I will not edit Conservapedia until Sunday, October 15, 2017. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 07:00, 10 August 2017 (EDT)<br />
AugustO, I am going to get back on track. '''I will not edit Conservapedia until Sunday, October 15, 2017'''<br />
*13:37, 12 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+96) . . 2018 Global Atheist Convention <br />
*13:37, 12 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+125) . . 2018 Global Atheist Convention <br />
*13:19, 12 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+30) . . Atheist fundraising vs. religious fundraising (→See also) (current)<br />
*13:18, 12 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-12) . . Fundraising (→Religious fundraising vs. atheist/irreligious fundraising) (current)<br />
*13:17, 12 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+17) . . Charity (→See also) (current)<br />
*13:17, 12 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+30) . . Fundraising <br />
*13:16, 12 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-1) . . Fundraising <br />
*13:15, 12 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (0) . . m Fundraising (Conservative moved page Fund-raising to Fundraising) --[[User:IMcCleod|IMcCleod]] ([[User talk:IMcCleod|talk]]) 16:18, 12 August 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::IMcCleod, do you also assume that only one editor uses the User:Conservative account (even though it has been made clear that it is used by multiple editors)? [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 23:16, 12 August 2017 (EDT)<br />
:::<s>IMcCloud, Christendom is playing a significant role in bringing [[Atheist factions|the quarrelsome]] and socially challenged [[atheist movement]] to its knees and now [[Global atheism statistics|atheists are shrinking in their global influence]]. <br />
<br />
:::American [[Atheist fundraising vs. religious fundraising|atheist fundraising]] is now anemic. The atheist activist Lee Moore recently admitted concerning major atheist organizations in the United States: "Most of them are starved for cash. They're downsizing left and right."[http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheist_fundraising_vs._religious_fundraising#Atheist_activist_Lee_Moore:_Donations_to_atheist_organizations_are_down_due_to_infighting_within_the_atheist_movement]<br />
<br />
:::While I am pleased to see that the largely despondent atheist movement is imploding while Christendom is going one glorious victory after another (see: [[Atheist pessimism about the atheist movement]] and [[High morale of Christendom]]), I have decided to broaden my horizons (And SamHB has played a role in this matter). <br />
<br />
:::As tempting as it is to add further information about the current state of affairs concerning the [[atheism vs. Christianity]] topic, I have decided that I must do better in keeping my commitment to be more focused in some of my current endeavors. Therefore, I am going to be completely resolute in this matter and not edit this wiki until October 18, 2017. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])</s><br />
<br />
"AugustO, I am going to get back on track. '''I will not edit Conservapedia until Sunday, October 15, 2017"<br />
*18:01, 15 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+280) . . Millennials, irreligion and obesity (→See also) (current)<br />
*17:54, 15 August 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-25) . . Millennials, irreligion and obesity--[[User:Jaris|Jaris]] ([[User talk:Jaris|talk]]) 18:17, 15 August 2017 (EDT) <br />
<br />
==More about Cons==<br />
In a [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SamHB#Taking_some_of_your_advice section above] Cons asked for complete secrecy if we are to engage in an email dialog. I gave him that assurance. I have abided by it, and will continue to do so. He then wrote that he had sent me an email.<br />
<br />
Other than to say that there has been some traffic on the sam4557 account, I will have nothing to say about any email. Please do not ask about it; I will not reply. Everything I write below is based entirely on material that is publicly visible on this website.<br />
<br />
Alert observers may have noticed that I dropped out of sight at about the same time that Cons (first) did. That is entirely a coincidence; there was no "pact" or "challenge". I dropped out because it became clear, from the [[Pussy Riot]] article, that "assistants" / "junior sysops" have been granted absolute power to control editorial content however they see fit, blocking other contributors if it suits them, and that a few of those assistants are actively wielding that power.<br />
<br />
Now, about Cons's "pledge" to refrain from editing CP and pursue more productive activities (I have no idea where the 66 days figure comes from), it is clear that, although there has been some good behavior, there has been some backsliding. Various other people have, quite understandably, chided him over this. Cons has apologized and promised to do better, only to have succumbed to temptation again. Longstanding bad habits are difficult to break. I would recommend that people show some Christian forgiveness, forbearance, and understanding as he struggles with this. (This would certainly be easier if Cons had shown more understanding and forbearance toward others in the past.)<br />
<br />
But there is something quite revealing about what has been going on. '''He could easily have blamed the backsliding on other members of his "consortium".''' Instead, he owned up to it. This shows, ''the way nothing else can'', that the business of Cons's account being operated by multiple people was utter nonsense. Most sensible people, including myself, saw through this all along. But a few people, as seen above on this page, including sysops who presumably had access to whatever non-public information there might have been, seem to have been totally taken in by this nonsense. Cons was man enough to admit to his failings, and other people should be man enough to accept that this "multiple person" fantasy was just that.<br />
<br />
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 20:37, 19 August 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I know you're referring specifically to me regarding the Pussy Riot article, SamHB. You were told on that and other articles (more than once) not to impose a liberal POV on them, but you didn't take heed of that advice and you went ahead anyway in violation of Conservapedia policy, following past behavioral patterns that led to you being blocked numerous times before by other editors. When you also say "various other people" regarding User:Conservative, what you really mean is the same poster using multiple accounts (most of which have since been blocked for sockpuppeteering) to hurl that accusation about the account just being used by one editor as opposed to more than one. Until Conservative says otherwise, I'm going to take his word for it. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 21:24, 19 August 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Re: SamHB's recent post to his talk page ==<br />
<br />
A few things:<br />
<br />
'''1.''' The 66 days is based on a journal article in the ''European Journal of Social Psychology'' entitled ''How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world''.[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.674/full]<br />
<br />
'''2.''' Sysops/admins have been told that more one person has used the User:Conservative account and I have indicated this multiple times. Sysops/admins have access to the check user function of this wiki which has enabled them to see that the User: Conservative account has been edited from multiple geographic regions (sometimes the account has been edited from more than one geographic region in the same day due to the fact that the account has been used by more than one editor). <br />
<br />
It has also been observed that the footnoting style of various User: Conservative edits has been radically different. <br />
<br />
In addition, skepticism has been expressed that one of the users of the User: Conservative account would create an article entitled [[Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals]]. <br />
<br />
'''3.''' SamHB is correct that longstanding bad habits can be difficult to break. While it is true that I had about a week long stretch without editing Conservapedia in early August of 2017, I ended my break from editing this wiki before the 66 days was up. <br />
<br />
Since this habit is more entrenched than anticipated, more drastic measures are clearly needed! So this habit will be broken using multiple methods - including a tried and true Marine Corps and Navy Seal method (Push ups if the old habit reemerges!). <br />
<br />
My next edit to this wiki will be on Tuesday, October 25, 2017.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:33, 20 August 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:There might be things I want to say here, but they will have to wait until the 66 days are up.<br />
:@Cons: You know what you need to do. Or, more precisely, what not to do. If you absolutely have to have some critical change made, feel free to send me an email.<br />
:@everyone else: Please stay away.<br />
<br />
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:10, 20 August 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Please check your email ==<br />
<br />
SamHB, please check your email. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 06:18, 14 September 2017 (EDT)<br />
:I have not looked at my sam4557 email since late August, and do not plan to look at it for 66 days. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:05, 14 September 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Quick note ==<br />
<br />
For the next 66 days, I may not strictly adhere to the 66 days editing total fast on Conservapedia editing, but I will at least be on a very restricted diet. :) <br />
<br />
I may do a limited amount of main page posts. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:03, 28 September 2017 (EDT)<br />
:I know I have to be very strict about this former pledge. The Apostle Paul says some relevant things about this matter. I am going to write to you about this matter.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])<br />
== More than one User: Conservative at Conservapedia ==<br />
<br />
<s>Note the footnoting and writing styles in these recent articles written using the [[User: Conservative]] account:<br />
<br />
*[[List of atheist shooters and serial killers]]<br />
<br />
*[[Atheism and mental illness]]<br />
<br />
*[[Essay: Was Stephen Paddock an atheist mass killer?]]<br />
<br />
The footnoting styles are clearly different between the first/second works and the third work (which is an essay). Why are the footnoting styles different? Because multiple editors have used the User: Conservative account. <br />
<br />
Clearly, the [[ad hominem]] attacks against "User: Conservative" and the armchair psychological analysis of "User: Conservative" should be reexamined. <br />
<br />
There are scholars that speculate there are multiple writers behind the work commonly associated with [[Sun Tzu]]. <br />
<br />
"Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate." - Sun Tzu.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])</s><br />
== A major search engine whose name begins with the letter G, recognizes that certain "atheist gentlemen" have been rattled and overwhelmed by the sheer weight of the "Atheism and ...." heavy artillery barage by the User: Conservative collective ==<br />
[[File:Google recognizes COCD.png|thumbnail|center|800px]]<br />
{{clear}}<br />
<br />
<s>For more information, please see: <br />
<br />
*[[Essay: Conservapedia Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is an officially recognized mental disorder|Conservapedia Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is an officially recognized mental disorder]]</s><br />
<br />
Talking about obsessions:<br />
{{cquote|My next edit to this wiki will be on Tuesday, October 25, 2017.Conservative (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2017 (EDT)}}<br />
And no, I had no trouble waiting until '''''Wednesday''''', October 25, 2017, to post this comment ;-)<br />
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 04:51, 25 October 2017 (EDT)<br />
:Which is nowhere ''near'' the level of liberal obsession with wanting to silence free speech for everyone but themselves (hence the regular attacks on this site by immature liberal vandals, and even attacks from within by the few regular liberal posters who ''think'' they know what's best for this site better than the admins do). [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 00:26, 26 October 2017 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== User: Conservative account ==<br />
<br />
I had another member of the User: Conservative editor base change the password to the User: Conservative account. <br />
<br />
In about a couple months or so, he will give me the new password.<br />
<br />
Taking a break from editing for awhile. See you when you get back. <br />
<br />
By the way, the [[2018 Global Atheist Convention that was cancelled|2018 Global Atheist Convention]] was cancelled due to lack of interest. Of course, this is yet another sign that Christendom has gloriously triumphed over the [[atheist movement]]! :)[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 11:02, 15 November 2017 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Not impressed ==<br />
<br />
Besides you seeking to provoke yet another fight on this site, you've also demonstrated two things by copying the user template I created for my user page (the one indicating that the user does not support the liberal media) and changing it into something else (accusing Breitbart News, a conservative news site, of being "fake news" even though it is not):<br />
<br />
# You proved through your actions that liberals (like yourself) lack originality and prefer to copy and imitate others (per the [[Liberal Style]] article, in number seven of the [[Liberal Style#Debate and rhetorical tactics|Debate and rhetorical tactics section]])<br />
# You resorted to the notorious tactic made infamous by Marx, Lenin and Goebbels in accusing conservative media of what the liberal media (particularly CNN, MSNBC, the nightly network newscasts, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Huffington Post, Vice Media, etc.) is guilty of itself (propagating lies, bias and fake news)<br />
<br />
Congrats, you just proved the point Conservapedia (and other sources) made about liberals and their tactics once again through your actions in trying to force a liberal POV here. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 09:37, 21 November 2017 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Well, I '''am''' impressed. You say that "liberals [...] lack originality and prefer to copy and imitate others [...]", and yet I have this: [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:SamHB#The_current_occupant_of_the_White_House] on my user page, from 03:52, 12 December 2017, and you made an interesting edit to your user page [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Northwest] at 16:58 the same day. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:42, 22 June 2018 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Which was in response to the false claims you made about President Trump, FYI. Are you really itching to start yet another fight here? [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 19:34, 22 June 2018 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== This page is not to be used for abusing, insulting, berating, or bullying cancer patients, or otherwise engaging in the kind of social, moral, or ethical depravity that people outgrow by age 10. ==<br />
<br />
I didn't berate any cancer patients. I merely pointed out the unhealthy and anti-social habits of atheists which give the atheist population a higher cancer rate. <br />
:You most certainly did. A careful reading of your activities here at CP relating to cancer, as well as what's been going on over at RW, shows very clearly that you were engaging in abusive and, frankly, un-Christian behavior toward RW user "Mercian". It is completely obvious from a careful reading of this what has been going on. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:32, 30 December 2017 (EST)<br />
In 2017, I helped my friend by researching the best solutions to treat his loved one's cancer. He asked me to do it because he felt I had strong research skills. In 2018, I am helping an anti-cancer initiative. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:15, 24 December 2017 (EST)<br />
:Congratulations. BTW, I'm also engaged in helping an anti-cancer initiative.<br />
:Also, your suggestion that left-handed people are somehow "mutant" strikes me as a bit more provocative than someone who is trying to win hearts and minds ought to be. You might want to tone down the negativity in the things you write. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:32, 30 December 2017 (EST)<br />
::<s>"A systematic literature review combined with primary research on handedness demonstrates that atheism and/or paranormal belief is associated with all of these indicators of high mutational load."[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-017-0133-5] <br />
<br />
::Judging by [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKl9H037C1k THE VIDEO] I saw where he explains his theory, the British anthropologist who published the article appears to be a person of high intelligence, but likely not as creative in his thinking as he ought to be (Maybe left-handedness creates otherness and people less prone to conformity), Nevertheless, he does appear to be smart enough to recognize what high mutational load is.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:37, 30 December 2017 (EST)</s><br />
=== Atheism and cancer ===<br />
<br />
<s>Some atheist (or at the very least someone who appeared to be an atheist) claimed an [[Atheism and cancer]] article was created in the past at this wiki. Yet, when I did a search using the search box, I found no record of such an article being created at this wiki.</s><br />
:That's funny. The article you cite was created, by you, at 14:39 on 22 December, before you wrote the above. It's still there now, having been edited almost continuously by you. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:29, 23 December 2017 (EST)<br />
<br />
<s>Given what I know about [[Atheism and health]] and [[Global atheism and aging populations]], I suspected there was a positive correlation between atheism and cancer. And lo and behold, there is! <br />
<br />
By the way, you might find this to be interesting: <br />
<br />
According to the American Cancer Society:<br />
<br />
"According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 69% of cancer patients say they pray for their health. A recent study published in Cancer, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Cancer Society, suggests a link between religious or spiritual beliefs and better physical health reported among patients with cancer."[https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/study-cancer-patients-with-strong-religious-or-spiritual-beliefs-report-better-health.html]<br />
<br />
The Christian apologist Gary Habermas wrote: "Double-blind prayer experiments: where people pray for others with terminal illness. Habermas admitted that most such experiments have not worked, but the three that he knows of that have indeed worked were cases of orthodox-Christians praying for the sick."[https://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-apologist-10-reasons-for-the-fall-of-atheism-106531/] <br />
<br />
See: [[Atheism and cancer#Religion/irreligion and cancer treatment|Religion/irreligion and cancer treatment]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:19, 22 December 2017 (EST)</s><br />
<br />
=== I've got the power! ===<br />
[[File:Freethinkers.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|<s>Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] is a staff member of [[Creation Ministries International]].</s> ]]<br />
<s>An atheist/agnostic wrote about me: "These people get off on controlling you, on subjecting you to their power... I'm sorry that... mound of misery got to you."<br />
<br />
SamHB, I thought Christians believed in free will, that people are free moral agents and that God can help people overcome various temptations? See also: [[Atheism and free will]]</s><br />
:Actually, we do believe that! Conservapedia addiction is a tough addiction to break, but people have broken even tougher ones. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:29, 23 December 2017 (EST)<br />
<br />
<s>"When in reality no one can ever make you feel ANYTHING! That’s right; you heard me. No one can make you cry. No one can make you happy. No one can make you sad. No one can make you feel better. No one can make you feel guilty…but you." - Heather Wilson <br />
<br />
Evidently, Heather Wilson has more [[machismo]] than the gentlemen of a certain atheist wiki! <br />
<br />
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BRv9wGf5pk I've got the power!] <br />
<br />
The truth often hurts. And certain gentlemen can't handle the truth!<br />
<br />
Evidently, I am the puppet master and certain atheist gentlemen are my puppets!</s><br />
[[File:Second dog with a bone.jpg|right|thumbnail|220px|<s>Atheists obsessed with [[Conservapedia]] are like a [[dog]] with a bone. Their dogged persistence in thinking about Conservapedia, discussing Conservapedia and making forecasts about Conservapedia is quite prodigious and intense.</s> ]] <br />
<s>I've got the power.<br />
<br />
I've got the power.<br />
<br />
Like the crack of the whip, I Snap attack...<br />
<br />
Bang the bass, turn up the treble.<br />
<br />
Radical mind, day and night all the time.<br />
<br />
7:14, wise divine. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])<br />
:I read this comment directed to me by a member of SJW atheist wiki: "What have you done but spiel hate...". <br />
<br />
:A best selling book declares that SJWs always project. It's so true. <br />
<br />
:Well cited and factual encyclopedia articles spieling hate. it such an absurd proposition. The British atheist EJamesW on Conservapedia's atheism related articles: "...they're very detailed, thorough and have lots of quotes and citations." (see: [[Essay: A British atheist on Conservapedia's atheism articles]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 03:54, 23 December 2017 (EST)</s><br />
<br />
== Re: Online boxing match ==<br />
<br />
Merician and I have been engaging in a bit of an online boxing match lately, but we have been playing by [https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Marquis+of+Queensberry+rules Marquess of Queensberry Rules].<br />
<br />
See also: [[Talk:Essay: British atheist acknowledges the reasonableness of a User: Conservative editor]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:09, 30 December 2017 (EST)<br />
:Addemdun: See my comments above regarding high mutational loads/left-handedness/socialization, otherness and less likely to engage in conformity (I expanded the [[Atheists and genetic mutations]] article to provide more in-depth analysis/commentary.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:41, 31 December 2017 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Your edits ==<br />
<br />
When you edited the Billy Graham article, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Texas_elections,_2018&diff=826892431&oldid=826891839 you reverted] my previous edit in addition to making the grammar fix. I didn't notice your fix, and with good reason, considering that your improvement was very small compared to what you reverted. Sorry for the confusion. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 11:21, 21 February 2018 (EST)<br />
<br />
==This refers to some stuff in archive #3==<br />
Actually, we did mark your words, in 2017, 2016, 2015, .... Your words were found wanting.<br />
<br />
Incidentally, the deceptiveness of Cons's "as I watch it burn" quote was discussed at [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:SamHB#I_would_really_love_to_see_User:Conservative_slowly_and_painfully_burn] on my user page.<br />
<br />
Cons would do well to write original material, that the majority of Conservapedians won't feel ashamed of, on topics that the majority of Conservapedians would find worthwhile for this web site.<br />
<br />
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:35, 27 February 2018 (EST)<br />
::Didn't Conservative suggest the man in the picture was a cowardly unionized firefighter. Most of the firefighters on 9/11 were unionized and they rushed into those buildings knowing fine well that the odds of them coming out alive were slim. Horribly disrespectful.--[[User:RSturmer|RSturmer]] ([[User talk:RSturmer|talk]]) 12:55, 27 February 2018 (EST)<br />
<br />
:<s>The global market share of atheist has generally been declining since 1970 (see: [[Global atheism statistics]]). So atheism has burned from 2015-2017. Please don't post counter factual rubbish/contentions on your talk page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])</s><br />
<br />
== You're Cool ==<br />
<br />
Just Sayin'. [[User:DaveSG|DaveSG]] ([[User talk:DaveSG|talk]]) 01:09, 24 February 2018 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thanks. And I have 19 blocks to show for it. I think the powers that be have come to an understanding that I do not harm or materially dilute what Conservapedia is saying, and that what I say is generally rather thoughtful, so they don't generally harm me these days. Many other, far less thoughtful, users can be found in the permanent block log. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:57, 24 February 2018 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Getting blocked 19 times for your misbehavior on this site is nothing to be proud of, and denying that you ''have'' tried to harm this site by repeatedly forcing a liberal viewpoint on it (including under the transparent guise of "essays") and provoking fights with other posters does not make what you've done here over time untrue or any less bad. That you would be praised for your behavior by a troll who has since been blocked says plenty. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 02:58, 25 February 2018 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::And incidentally, your recent snide edit summary comment in the Pussy Riot article, combined with your decision to ignore Conservapedia guidelines yet again by edit warring, insistently imposing liberal POV on that and other articles and by provoking yet another fight, just earned you a two-day break. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 23:30, 25 February 2018 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::Hi Northwest, you did not give a reason why the essay of SamHB is written from a "liberal point of view". Instead of arguing with him you simply started an edit war. I could not find any liberal tendencies in this essay and therefore there is no comprehensible reason for his block.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 08:46, 26 February 2018 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::Again, Assistant SysOps are not allowed by the rules to block longstanding membersto resolve disputes--I agree with JoeyJ's response. That said, edit warring is also unproductive, and making essay versions of CP articles has already been discussed and generally disapproved of. (Yes, I know, I just used a trailing preposition....)<br />
:::::I do see the differences between these two (listed here: https://www.diffchecker.com/49fnIo4C), but in the long run, do they make that much of a difference? Can't we let the reader decide what view to take? I don't trust Putin either, but the fact these people are using obscene activities to convey their message still stands. Perhaps focusing on them and their activities rather than Putin's is the best idea? {{unsigned|DavidB4}}<br />
<br />
==Northwest and Pussy Riot==<br />
User Northwest seems to have a spectacular disdain for me. This can be seen in many things he has written in a number of places, most notably here on this talk page, and on the [[Pussy Riot]] article and talk page. A particularly noteworthy case of this can be seen in the "not impressed" section above, where he takes me to task for copying material from another template (something that people do all the time) to accuse me of lacking originality, claiming that all liberals do the same, and comparing me to Marx, Lenin and Goebbels.<br />
<br />
He also says, in the "You're Cool" section above, that my having been blocked 19 (now 20) times shows misbehavior. A few things:<br />
*I have been here much longer than Northwest, and most of those blocks were before his time. He knows nothing about the circumstances.<br />
*Other than a few that naturally expired, all of those blocks were later rescinded, either by the blocking party directly, or by being countermanded by an admin.<br />
*One of those blocks was by someone who was later unmasked as a parodist.<br />
*One of those blocks was for a completely bogus accusation of being a sock of AlanS, whom I never knew. (That incident has led me to have no confidence in the process of identifying sock accounts.)<br />
As far as I know, I am respected at least to some extent by virtually everyone that I have had contact with here at Conservapedia. Even someone who had earlier gotten the wrong impressions and blocked me. I have had my work praised by a number of admins, ''including the site owner''. So I do not know why Northwest takes such a strong attitude against me. I have mostly ignored him, but the Pussy Riot issue did not admit a solution other than making an "essay" alternative article.<br />
<br />
I agree with DavidB4 that having an alternative "essay" article is not a good idea. I only did that because Northwest's insistence that only "leftists" and "Social Justice Warriors" (SJW's) oppose murderous thug Putin. I simply could not stand for that implication.<br />
<br />
In further response to DavidB4, yes, these people use obscene activities (I've seen the youtube videos; some of them are appalling). But the article is almost entirely focused on them and their activities. There is only a small portion about the international protest of Putin regarding their imprisonment and pardon. That is a small, but nevertheless important, part of the article. The protests in support of Pussy Riot were an international phenomenon, and was not limited to leftists and SJW's.<br />
<br />
I would have no problem with getting rid of the essay (it was admittedly picayune, and the change was extremely minor) if it were permitted to mention the international protests. We would either have to have the article locked by an admin (this has been done on several other articles that were subject to edit warring) or we would need a clear statement from Northwest that the article reflect a consensus of the Conservapedia community.<br />
<br />
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:38, 28 February 2018 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Ignoring the truth about those protests - that they were staged by leftists (regardless of nationality) with an anti-Christian animus like the band itself has - does you no favors. As for the past blocks against you, regardless of what you think about those blocks, they were justified because you saw fit to violate Conservapedia's guidelines more than once, including imposing a liberal viewpoint on that article and on the Nazi Party article (and your attitude toward the blocks also reflects your attitude toward the rules of the site itself), and ignoring that fact does nothing for you either. <br />
<br />
:And about your claim of "being respected at least to some extent by virtually everyone that I have had contact with here at Conservapedia", your attitude toward [[User:Conservative]] and other editors here who don't necessarily agree with your viewpoint here and who counter or refute your claims with counterpoints supported by non-liberal-sourced, reference-backed evidence (which you've shown to get offended by in at least Conservative's case, and has led you to provoke fights against myself and other posters in other cases and to make false claims of conservative media like Breitbart being "fake news" in response to the fact that the liberal media itself purveys fake news) appears to show that that respect is not a two-way street when it isn't convenient for you (as part of that, I've even noticed that in [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_proven_right&diff=prev&oldid=1404861 this edit] in [[Conservapedia proven right]], most of your sources in that edit come from liberal media websites, specifically NBC, CBS and the BBC - all of which have been discredited due to being exposed as fake news creators, and all of which you put back in the article in response to Andy Schlafly removing them because he noted that the sources were from multiple liberal sites all reporting the same thing and that your claim of "gravitational waves being convincingly detected" was itself implausible and claimed by liberals, whose claims you used via those sources). Those are some of the things you really should keep in mind. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 04:29, 28 February 2018 (EST)<br />
:*My relationship with Cons is far more complex and nuanced, both publicly and privately, than you seem to be aware. If we didn't actually have a cordial relationship beneath those gruff exteriors, he wouldn't post pictures of concertina wire on my talk page. You would do well not to assume that you understand the situation correctly.<br />
:*On the anti-relativity bandwagon? Really? Please do your homework, as outlined in the "People who write about relativity but don't know what they are talking about" section of my user page.<br />
:*The Nazi Party article? You really follow me around, don't you? That stuff was from a year and a half ago. Do you keep similarly detailed dossiers on other people? Or is there something about me that fascinates you?<br />
:*I am actually well aware of the rules of the site, having read them many many times. You don't seem to be.<br />
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 10:41, 28 February 2018 (EST)<br />
:::Your comments still don't excuse your behavior on this site, or the fact that you not only continue to manipulatively deny any wrongdoing you've done here (including your use of liberal sources for your science article edits and claiming them as "fact" despite Andy stating otherwise) and shift the blame to everyone else (a hallmark liberal tactic), you even claim to be "well aware of the rules of the site" yet continue to violate them when you see fit. I'm actually more aware of the rules here than you realize (or care to admit), so don't go making assumptions (including about the reversions of edits in which you imposed a liberal POV). [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 14:54, 28 February 2018 (EST)<br />
<br />
==John McCain==<br />
Rob Smith: I have reverted your additional negative comments about John McCain.<br />
:"I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," -- Gen. [[Wesley Clark]], June 30, 2008 as a surrogate for the Obama campaign.<br />
:"They want us to forget the insults we've had to endure. Intolerance. They've made us feel marginalized in this country we love so much. John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces," -- 2008 Obama campaign ad.<br />
It's well known that people say negative things about their opponents during election campaigns. And I'm not aware that Mr. McCain ran on a platform of having been a POW in North Vietnam, though I'm sure it got mentioned. My recollection is that he ran mostly on his legislative record. The two comments that I put on my user page were simply pure evil.<br />
<br />
Feel free to take the material and put it into some kind of "McCaingate timeline" article, or whatever you want. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 22:28, 26 May 2018 (EDT)<br />
:My apologies. I thought I'd help you appear to be a fair minded individual rather than standing by Democrat race baiting and hypocrisy. Again, my apologies. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 04:16, 27 May 2018 (EDT)<br />
::Well, I thank you for your offer of help in keeping my talk page free of race baiting and hypocrisy. But I think the amount of race baiting that I do (zero) is just right. I'll be really careful not to engage in race baiting in the future. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:40, 27 May 2018 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Rob's finding that I engaged in race-baiting in the John McCain tribute on my user page piqued my curiosity. I wondered "What is RobSmith's writing actually like?" I hadn't read any of it in many months, since he has lately been engaging in manic editing sprees that would put [[User:Conservative]] to shame. And the edit comments and article titles indicate that the edits must be rubbish on a par with Cons's writing. Worse than, for example [[Atheists_and_physical_attractiveness]]? Hard to say. I'd have to read that stuff.<br />
<br />
So I picked one of Rob's edits at random: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Trump_transition&diff=1425318&oldid=1425317 this one]. He essentially added "... as millions of misogynist white women went to the polls on election day ..." to the Trump transition article. Huh?? In an ''encyclopedia''? One that prides itself on being trustworthy?<br />
<br />
That edit was one of 211 edits, over a 30 hour period with just 3 breaks, of less than 5, 4, and 2 hours. That's the sort of thing that Rob considers worth spending his time on? By contrast, Cons made only 10 edits in that same time frame. Cons still has a long way to go, be he's making progress.<br />
<br />
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:22, 31 May 2018 (EDT)<br />
:USA Today: [https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/09/27/john-mccain-ran-repealing-obamacare-he-broke-his-promise-robert-robb-column/708114001/ John McCain ran on repealing Obamacare. He broke his promise].<br />
<br />
:John McCain is a petty, vindictive and unreliable man. He is a war hero though. McCain let his anger at Trump get the best of him (Trump's comment on his military service). I suppose this isn't the first or last time that a person of Irish descent let their anger get the best of them. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:08, 31 May 2018 (EDT)<br />
::Cons, my friend, a couple of points. (You know me well enough to know when I'm reaming you out and when I'm just disagreeing, right? This is the latter.)<br />
::*It's true that McCain's recent vote on healthcare was the opposite of what you, and many others, had hoped for. But people change their position between their campaigns and their final votes all the time. If everyone was required to vote exactly the way they campaigned, they wouldn't bother to hold votes in Congress. On the first day of the session, they would just enact into law whatever people had indicated they would do while they were running for office, no? Then they could all go home. In reality, they hold committee hearings, they hold conferences, they try to reach consensus, they try to persuade their colleagues ("log-rolling", I believe it's called), they rewrite the proposed legislation again and again and again, trying to get it into a form that will pass the voting. What people vote on is often not what the issues were perceived to be when they were campaigning. You really shouldn't call McCain unreliable for this. (By the way, I'm kind of neutral on this issue, and I haven't compared McCain's vote with what the issue was when he was campaigning.) I'm sorry that his vote disappointed you, but these things happen. That's why we have a Congress.<br />
::*Petty and vindictive? Are you suggesting that he voted that way because of personal animosity at President Trump? That his "anger ... got the best of him?" Really? His anger over the "I want people who weren't shot down" comment from a year before is what led to his vote? Can you back up that connection with some statements of his?<br />
::*I know you are not a bigot, but the reference to people of Irish descent was unnecessary. People occasionally let their anger get the best of them all the time. And I doubt that it's related to being Irish. (Though, truth to tell, this isn't the first time I've heard a statement like that.) I don't associate irascibility with being Irish. BTW, I'm not Irish, and I'm pretty sure you aren't either. Just say that he let his anger get the best of him. Though I don't think it did.<br />
::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:14, 2 June 2018 (EDT)<br />
"The so-called Irish temperament is a mixture of flaming ego, hot temper, stubbornness, great personal charm and warmth, and a wit that shines through adversity. An irrepressible buoyancy, a vivacious spirit, a kindliness and tolerance for the common frailties of man and a feeling that 'it is time enough to bid the devil good morning when you meet him' are character traits which Americans have associated with their Irish neighbors for more than a century." - Dr. Carl Wittke, Chair, History Department, Western Reserve University, 1952-1962.[https://lasvegassun.com/news/1997/mar/17/where-i-stand-irish-a-mix-of-ego-stubbornness-grea/][https://immigration.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=008659] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:15, 2 June 2018 (EDT)<br />
:OK, you win. I've also been told that the Irish are known for their humor. In any case, well played, sir! [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:32, 2 June 2018 (EDT)<br />
::My sincerest dream for America is that we can once again have a sane and realistic enough public discourse to admit that we can, at least partially, attribute somebody's temper to their Irish heritage. And that, yes, [[Valerie Jarrett]] really does look like that one monkey lady from ''Planet of the Apes''. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 02:51, 2 June 2018 (EDT)<br />
:::You never cease to amaze me. Not well played. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 10:08, 2 June 2018 (EDT)<br />
<br />
'''''USA Today'' (reprinted from The Arizona Republic, opinion piece):''' <br />
<br />
"This is one instance in which President Trump’s criticisms of McCain are well-founded. McCain did run, as Trump is drumming, on a strong repeal-and-replace platform. In fact, it was the principal distinction he drew with his Democratic opponent, Ann Kirkpatrick.<br />
<br />
McCain now says that Democrats made a mistake in passing Obamacare on a partisan basis, and that Republicans shouldn’t undo it on a similarly partisan basis. But that’s the equivalent of a Brezhnev doctrine on domestic policy. Democrats can enact legislation on a partisan basis. But Republicans can undo it only if Democrats agree.<br />
<br />
McCain is undoubtedly correct that bipartisan policy changes are more enduring. But when one side acts unilaterally, it shouldn’t get a veto when the other side attempts to undo it."[https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/09/27/john-mccain-ran-repealing-obamacare-he-broke-his-promise-robert-robb-column/708114001/]<br />
<br />
'''IrishCentral.com:'''<br />
<br />
"An article on McCain in Prospect Magazine from August 2008 saw writer Anatol Lieven attribute many of Sen. McCain's traits to his heritage. Lieven wrote, "his obstinacy; his tendency towards unshakeable friendship and implacable hatred; his hair-trigger temper; his deep patriotism; his obsession with American honor; and his furious response to any criticism of the US.""[https://www.irishcentral.com/news/politics/john-and-cindy-mccain-s-irish-roots-what-you-need-to-know]<br />
<br />
"In the end, Irish American McCain took revenge for Trump's deadly attack on him last year calling him no hero because he was captured in Vietnam."[https://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/niallodowd/irish-american-john-mccain-proves-revenge-is-a-dish-best-eaten-cold]<br />
<br />
'''''The New York Times:'''''<br />
<br />
''The New York Times'' admits: "It probably didn’t hurt that it was also a measure of cold revenge against Mr. Trump, a man who on the campaign trail in 2015 had mocked Mr. McCain’s ordeal as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. "[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/us/john-mccains-real-return.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:19, 2 June 2018 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Trump's blunder was that he did not know his enemy. In a divided country where U.S. Senate votes can be close, creating a bitter enemy in the U.S. Senate was definitely not smart. Trump should have merely said that military service should be respected, but being a war hero does not give someone a free pass to do whatever they want or make them immune from legitimate criticism. In the 2016 election, Trump may have gotten more votes from veterans had he done that. In addition, perhaps McCain would not have voted against ObamaCare. <br />
<br />
:The ''Independent'': "When he arrived for the vote McCain, who could easily have pleaded ill-health and simply stayed out of the whole thing, told assembled reporters to '''“wait for the show”'''.(bolding added for emphasis)".[https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-john-mccain-obamacare-revenge-voted-no-vietnam-war-obama-a7864701.html]<br />
<br />
:McCain's vote was a showy vote of revenge. Had he not campaigned so strongly against ObamaCare previously, a more convincing counterargument could be made. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:35, 2 June 2018 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Well played again!! You do your homework on current events and contemporary U.S. politics as diligently as I do my homework on math and physics. I'd '''much''' rather read your writings on current events than on why potholes show that evolution didn't happen. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:42, 2 June 2018 (EDT)<br />
:::You make too many mistakes for ''that'' to be true. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 23:04, 2 June 2018 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Ireland, Scotland and the USA gave a significantly higher GDP than Britain.[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html] It helps to have a fighting spirit that drives the British from your land! Don't get the Scotch-Irish or the Americans mad![[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:51, 22 June 2018 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Inactivity? ==<br />
<br />
Your user page says you will be inactive for 66 days, until late August. Did something change, or did you forget about it? --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 13:51, 15 July 2018 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== re: Having an article related to attractiveness and a segment of the human population ==<br />
[[File:Bvdy76.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|"<s>Of course, we do not deny evolutionism itself."[https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-il] - [[Kim Jong-il]], an overweight, unattractive leftist, evolutionist and atheist who died of a heart attack. See also: [[Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese]] and [[Atheism and obesity]]<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Truly knowledgeable individuals in terms of knowledge about biology and science properly regulate a basic function such as eating and also get an adequate amount of exercise!!!]]<br />
[[Carrie Nation]], a radical member of the temperance movement, used to go into taverns and wreak havoc with a hatchet. Since you appear to see no value as far as attractiveness when it comes to people's appearances, have you ever thought of going around beauty parlors and wreaking havoc with a hatchet? You could also lead protests outside of beauty parlors. You could lead a movement to ban beauty contests.<br />
<br />
For thousands of years, cultures have valued beauty. Even the Bible comments on [[Sarah]]'s beauty. [[Solomon]]'s [[Song of Songs]] mentions beauty. <br />
<br />
And yet, a petulant liberal complains about an article on [[Atheists and physical attractiveness]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:01, 6 September 2018 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:By the way, given that the social science data indicates that right-wing individuals are better looking than left of center individuals, is the reason you take umbrage at the article due to jealousy? <br />
:Deny that [[Donald Trump]] is taller and better looking than the godless, leftist and evolutionist [[Kim Jong-un]] and lose all credibility! <br />
<br />
:"Of course, we do not deny evolutionism itself."[https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-il] - [[Kim Jong-il]], an overweight, unattractive leftist/evolutionist/atheist who died of a heart attack. See also: [[Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese]] and [[Atheism and obesity]]<br />
<br />
:Truly knowledgeable individuals, in terms of knowledge about biology and science, properly regulate a basic function such as eating and also get an adequate amount of exercise!!![[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:17, 6 September 2018 (EDT)<br />
=== Meet PZ Myers, the overweight and unattractive atheist/evolutionist/leftist ===<br />
[[File:PZ Myers pic.jpg|thumbnail|275px|center|The biologist and evolutionist [[PZ Myers]] in 2006. Myers is also a staunch atheist. See also: [[Atheism and obesity]] <br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
For further information, please see: [[Essay: PZ Myers embarrasses himself at the Creation Museum|PZ Myers embarrasses himself at the Creation Museum]] and [[Essay: Professor PZ Myers fails his applied biology course|Professor PZ Myers fails his applied biology course]] ]]</s><br />
{{clear}}<br />
<br />
== User: Conservative proven right again! ==<br />
<br />
<s>At the 2018 [[American Atheists]] convention, the ex-president of the American Atheist organization [[David Silverman]] declared:<br />
{{Cquote|It is a hard time to be [[Atheist activist|an atheist activist]]. This has affected us. And it has affected our community... <br />
<br />
...it has really affected us. We are suffering a level of [[defeatism]] that I have never seen before... <br />
<br />
We feel the loss. And we feel like we have lost. We feel like [[Donald Trump and American atheists|we lost the election]]... We see this cascade of attack coming down at us over and over from all different directions and we feel like it's over. I have heard so many times it makes me sick. It makes me sad. It feels like we lost. <br />
<br />
The [[Atheism and apathy|apathy that follows]]. It doesn't matter. We can't win anyways. It's useless to fight. This apathy is infecting us. It's hurting us.<br />
<br />
And people are reacting to each other now. And so that is [[Atheist factions|causing a division]]. Lots and lots of division in our movement. Hard, bad division... And that has resulted in a splintering and factioning of the movement that I have never seen before and none of us have.<br />
<br />
In other words, '''we're in a bad situation and it's getting worse.''' (bolding added for emphasis).<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8VYLMYvImc David Silverman - How the Mighty Get Back Up]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Didn't I tell you that each successive year was going to be the WORST year for atheism? It's coming to pass! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:57, 9 September 2018 (EDT)</s><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist}}</div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=1444836Theory of relativity2018-09-07T21:41:55Z<p>SamHB: /* Experimental and Observational Evidence Confirming Relativity */ More about assumptions.</p>
<hr />
<div>''See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].''<br />
<br />
In physics, the '''theory of relativity''' is a scientific theory describing the effects due to the invariance of the speed of light. In particular, the meaning of space and time are altered by the motion of the observer. Relativity proposes time dilation and length contraction for observers moving relative to one another at very high ("relativistic") speeds.<br />
<br />
'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related mathematical theories in [[physics]]:<br />
[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|<br />
*"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>]]<br />
*'''[[Special theory of relativity|Special relativity]]''' (SR) is a theory to describe 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 put forward by [[Albert Einstein]]; its mathematical framework was independently developed and formalized 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><br />
<br />
*'''[[General theory of relativity|General Relativity]]''' (GR) is a theory to explain the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was originally developed by Einstein, with help from [[David Hilbert]] in its final mathematical formulation, as a generalization of the postulates of Special Relativity to account for non-inertial, accelerating observers, particularly those in a gravitational field.<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<ref>Stephen Hawking, ''Brief History of Time'' ("Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get."). Hawking was being kind. In fact, Eddington excluded data that did not fit his preconceived view. Further discrediting of Eddington's study was published by Earman, J., Glymour, C., Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci. 11, 49-85 (1980), and Collins, H. M., Pinch, T., The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science. Cambridge University Press (1993) (as cited in [http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070907/full/news070903-20.html#B2])</ref> claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 popularized the theory.<br />
<br />
These theories have augmented earlier approaches, such as [[Galilean Relativity]].<br />
<br />
The theory of relativity is defended with religious-like zeal, such that no college faculty tenure, Ph.D degree, or Nobel Prize is ever awarded to anyone who dares criticize the theory, as the example of denying a Nobel Prize to the most accomplished physicist of the 20th century, [[Robert Dicke]], illustrates. Other critics of the theory are [[Nikola Tesla]], who called it a "...magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists..."<ref>[http://www.plasmacosmology.net/tesla.html New York Times, July 11, 1935, p23, c8]</ref> and Louis Essen [1908-1997], the man credited with determining the speed of light. He wrote many fiery papers against it such as ''Relativity and Time Signals''<ref>http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3297</ref> and ''Relativity - Joke or Swindle?''.<ref>http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm</ref> Perhaps the most famous website opposing relativity is this one, with its [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. The cornerstone item in that page involves the experimental measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury that show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.<br />
<br />
The theory 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><br />
<br />
The theory 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> Special relativity assumes that all observers in inertial frames of reference will measure the same value for the speed of light, '''c''' and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent. These hypotheses that can never be fully tested. Relativity rejects Newton's [[action at a distance]], which is basic to Newtonian gravity and also found to be a consequence of [[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, since quantum effects would not be negligible (in the same way non-relativistic quantum mechanics is not valid when dealing with particles traveling near the speed of light). <br />
<br />
The "continuous" nature of space and time postulated by relativity is in conflict with the "discrete" nature in [[quantum mechanics]],<ref>For example, Relativity claims that space and time are smooth and continuous, while [[quantum mechanics]] suggests otherwise. [http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out.] Relativity also denies [[action-at-a-distance]], while quantum mechanics suggests otherwise. Relativity denies any role for chance, while quantum mechanics is heavily dependent on it.</ref> 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.<br />
<br />
Unlike [[Classical mechanics|Newtonian 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 (x<sup>2</sup> - c<sup>2</sup> t<sup>2</sup>). The instantaneous transmission of Newtonian gravitational effects also contradicts relativity.<br />
<br />
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]].<br />
<br />
== Special Relativity ==<br />
Lorentz and Poincaré 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 Poincaré's theory<ref>http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"</ref> in terms of two assumptions (postulates):<br />
<br />
# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''<br />
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''<br />
<br />
In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:<br />
# 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><br />
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.<br />
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).<br />
<br />
Or, in more concise, clearer terms, these assumptions are this:<br />
<br />
#there is no [[action at a distance]] (because that would make observations dependent on the frame of reference)<br />
#space and time are completely symmetric throughout the universe (because otherwise frames of reference would not be interchangeable)<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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 Earth's orbital motion through the [[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.)<br />
<br />
At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Lorentz-Poincaré relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The media-promoted equation ''[[E=mc²]]'', implausibly suggests a relationship between typically unrelated concepts of energy, the rest mass of a body and the speed of light.<br />
<br />
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 of 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).<br />
<br />
Many scientists have indicated problems with the postulates of special relativity. Paul Davies, formerly of Macquarie University and now at the University of Arizona believes that the speed of light has changed over time. Since the speed of light is a constant speed 'c' this indicates problems with the theory [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2181455.stm light speed]. Other engineers and scientists have written about problems in the basic set of special relativity equations. Based on the ideas of not Einstein but of the scientist Fitzgerald as well as others, a length contraction effect was predicted as an explanation of the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect Earth's orbital motion. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss, a computer engineer, invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20120303075834/http://www.relativitycollapse.com/ Ad for the book ''The Collapse of Special Relativity</ref><br />
<br />
== General Relativity ==<br />
<br />
::::''See the [[General theory of relativity]] page for more in-depth coverage of this topic.''<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The anomalous precession of Mercury's [[perihelion]] seems to support the Theory of General Relativity, though that is disputed on the[[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. Keep in mind that the precession in question is the ''"anomalous"''<br />
precession after the effects of other planets' gravitation action has been compensated for. Those other effects are much larger, and are purely Newtonian in nature. There was another explanation based on Newtonian gravity, involving a slight alteration to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, but it was discarded when it gave very bad results for the Moon's orbit.<br />
<br />
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>[[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.<br />
<br />
::''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><br />
<br />
The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
==Lack of evidence for Relativity==<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Claims that relativity was used to develop the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) are false. A 1996 article explains:<br />
<br />
:"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><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. While Van Flandern believed that relativity is unnecessary for GPS, he also asserted that observations of GPS satellites supported both general and special relativity, writing that "we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days," with unrelated factors interfering with longer-term observations.<ref>http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp</ref><br />
<br />
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, likely because in Newtonian Mechanics every clock in the universe keeps time at the same rate regardless of velocity, acceleration, or the presence or absence of force.<br />
<br />
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><br />
<br />
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, but only if we treat light as capable of being accelerated and decelerated like ordinary matter, which is contrary to all measurements and observations to date.<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. <br />
<br />
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 so long as they do not undergo accelerations near the speed of light or enter any massive gravity wells.<ref>There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe.</ref><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. While general relativity was developed on purely theoretical grounds, it was soon discovered that it explained these precession observations.<ref>http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000</ref><ref>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node117.html</ref> Newton's theory can also explain the Mercury precession by making tiny adjustments to parameters in the gravitational equation, but doing so would give the same precession for all orbiting bodies everywhere, a phenomenon which is not observed.<br />
<br />
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 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><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity==<br />
<br />
Predictions of general relativity turn out to be obscure and difficult to test. The two most famous predictions were the bending of light in a gravitational field and the precession of the perihelia of orbiting planets.<br />
<br />
*The first of these was famously tested during a total eclipse in 1919. That test was somewhat muddled by an incorrect initial calculation, by several people including Einstein himself, of what the effect would be, and some "cherry picking" of the data to be used.<ref>''Einstein's Luck'', John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9</ref> The data selection could be considered "manipulation" or "fudging", by a person (Arthur Eddington) who had a personal stake in the outcome. His analysis techniques would not pass muster today. The announcement of this test, flawed though it was, made Einstein world-famous.<ref>[http://einstein.stanford.edu/Library/images/lightsAllAskewBig.jpg The New York Times, Nov. 10, 1919]</ref><ref>[https://www.worldbooklearning.com/how-did-an-eclipse-help-make-albert-einstein-famous/ How did an eclipse help make Albert Einstein famous]</ref><ref>[https://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post/44934715350/how-albert-einstein-became-a-celebrity How Albert Einstein became a celebrity]</ref><ref>[https://www.sciencealert.com/general-relativity-experiment-confirms-accuracy-for-galaxies "The public's mind was blown by the results, effectively turning Albert Einstein into a household name and cementing the concept of general relativity into physics books."]</ref><br />
<br />
:It should be noted that pre-relativistic (Newtonian) physics may also predict a bending, of half the observed value, depending on whether one uses the 17th century "corpuscular" formulation or the 19th century "wave" formulation.<br />
<br />
:Relying on the usual assumptions (Newtonian mechanics, Galilean relativity, conservation of energy and momentum, the universality of the speed of light (that is, special relativity), the Equivalence Principle, and the geodesic equation in empty space (that is, general relativity), and the proper calibration of the instruments, observations of later eclipses, and the observations of quasar 3C273, confirm predictions of the theory.<br />
<br />
:No [[Nobel Prize]] was was awarded for this. A few years later Einstein won the Nobel Prize for the (unrelated) [[Photoelectric effect]].<br />
<br />
*The second "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.<br />
<br />
:No Nobel Prize was was awarded for this.<br />
<br />
==Experimental and Observational Evidence Confirming Relativity==<br />
<br />
The different effects predicted by special relativity, compared to classical formulations, are extremely tiny. Most relativistic effects are negligible at the speeds of ordinary phenomena observed by humans. The effects only become significant when the speeds involved are a significant fraction of the speed of light, which is <math>3 \times 10^8</math> meters per second&mdash;such speeds are called ''relativistic''. (However, it's worth noting that ordinary magnetism can be considered an effect of relativity, dictated by the need for electrostatic theory to be correct under relativity. The speed of light in fact appears in the formulas ([[Maxwell's Equations]]) governing electricity and magnetism, though these equations were developed long before relativity was proposed.)<br />
<br />
Because the effects of relativity are so tiny, scientists have been devising sophisticated and sensitive tests ever since the theory was formulated in 1905.<br />
<br />
It is important to be aware that it is fairly rare for an experiment to '''prove''' a theory. In general, 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 a theory, it lends credence to that theory. When no other plausible theory can explain 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 was at one time another competing theory&mdash;the Newcomb-Hall exponent-fudging theory. That one didn't hold up for things other than Mercury. No other theory has come up explaining the phenomenon; GR has withstood the test of time. That goes a long way toward validating GR. There are many other observations and experiments, covering a wide variety of phenomena, described below&mdash;bending of light, gravitational time dilation, gravitational waves, geodetic precession, Shapiro effect, etc. It is these widely disparate observations, and the lack of any alternative theories explaining any of them, that lead people to say that GR is "experimentally validated".<br />
<br />
While the experimental tests for General Relativity are rather esoteric, those for Special Relativity are fairly straightforward. So much so that the Michelson-Morley experiment could be said to have single-handedly established the case for SR&mdash;the logical syllogism leading from Michelson-Morley to SR and the Lorentz transform was fairly clear once people saw it.<br />
<br />
When analyzing an experiment to see whether it validates a theory, one must be careful not to assume the theory in one's reasoning. For establishing Special Relativity with the Michelson-Morley experiment, the assumptions are:<br />
<br />
#Newtonian and Galilean mechanics.<br />
#Galilean relativity, that is, the notion that there is no absolute frame of reference.<br />
#The universality of the speed of light.<br />
#And, of course, proper calibration of the equipment.<br />
#:The third one was the observation that Michelson and Morley made.<br />
#:<br />
#:<br />
#:For the derivation of E=mc², these assumptions are added:<br />
#:<br />
#Conservation of energy.<br />
#Conservation of momentum.<br />
#:All of the assumptions listed above constitute SR.<br />
#:<br />
#:It would be nearly inconceivable to derive GR without SR. Gravitational time dilation, for example, requires a lot of information coming from SR. <br />
#:So, for the experiments listed below for GR, the assumptions are the 6 above plus:<br />
#The Equivalence Principle.<br />
#:So the experiments below for GR are really just establishing that the Equivalence Principle is valid, and that GR follows logically from that.<br />
<br />
The most famous experiment, and the one that is commonly cited in textbooks as the experiment that established the case for relativity,<ref>Though relativity did not actually originate from this experiment</ref> was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]]. This showed that all observers will obtain the same measured value for the speed of light (3x10<sup>8</sup> meters per second) no matter what their state of motion. This is the first of the two fundamental principles:<br />
#''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''<br />
#''The laws of physics are identical in all reference frames.''<br />
(The second is just a restatement of Galilean relativity, that is, the "common sense" that had been accepted for centuries.)<br />
A naive "common sense" interpretation of Galilean relativity would require that measurements of the speed of light (or anything else) by different observers would get results that differ by the observers' relative speeds, and hence that principle #1 can't be true. Special relativity fixes this apparent paradox.<br />
<br />
All of special relativity derives for these two principles, plus assumptions of exact conservation of momentum and energy in all cases.<br />
<br />
*At the end of Einstein's original 1905 paper on the subject<ref>http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?"</ref>, he speculates on the possibility that the equation <math>E = m c^2</math>, which would normally be very hard to verify, could be verified with the extremely high energies of the newly discovered phenomenon of radioactivity.<ref>This equation is not related to [[quantum mechanics]].</ref> In the 1910s, with the invention of the mass spectrometer, it became possible to measure masses of nuclei accurately. This led to the clearing up of the mystery of atomic masses not being exact integers,and strongly suggested the existence of a "mass defect" (or "packing fraction") consistent with the mass-energy equivalence. In the 1930s, experiments with known nuclear reactions showed a very accurate correlation between the masses of the nuclei involved and the energy released. See [[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]].<br />
<br />
*Another prediction of special relativity was time dilation in rapidly moving objects. This effect was most famously verified in the anomalously slow decay of relativistic cosmic muons.<ref>Some have suggested that other explanations are possible for this effect. We are trying to track this down.</ref> Time dilation has since been verified many times, and is routinely taken into account in all high-energy nuclear physics experiments, as in Hadron collision experiments.<ref>Experiments specifically designed to check dilation are rarely conducted any more.</ref><br />
<br />
As the 20th century progressed, tests of general relativity were proposed.<br />
<br />
*One important "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.<br />
<br />
:This created quite a problem&mdash;physicists by then were accustomed to having their theories check out very accurately. One proposal that was made, by Simon Newcomb and Asaph Hall, was that the exponent of the radius in the gravitational formula wasn't exactly 2. He showed that, by choosing an exponent of <math>2+\delta</math>, the precession, as a fraction of a full orbit per planet's year, is <math>\delta/2</math>. By setting <math>\delta</math> to .000000157, that is, an exponent of 2.000000157, Newcomb was able to get a precession of .000000078 revolutions per Mercury year, or 43 arcseconds per Earth year. Whatever value is chosen for <math>\delta\,</math>, it gives the same precession, per revolution, for all orbiting bodies, but gravitational effects from other planets diminish that effect the further the planet is from the sun.<br />
<br />
:The approximation given at the end of Einstein's 1916 paper <ref>http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_GRelativity_1916.pdf "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity"</ref> is <math>24 \pi^3\frac{a^2}{T^2c^2 (1-e^2)}</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where a is the semi-major axis, T is the length of the planet's year, and e is the eccentricity. A much simpler, but less accurate, approximation, designed to show how the precession relates to the planet's speed, is <math>3{}v^2/c^2</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where <math>v</math> is the planet's average orbital speed. These are just approximations. Getting an accurate value requires integrating the geodesic equation where Ricci's tensor is zero.<br />
<br />
:While Newcomb's theory, and general relativity, don't lead to closed-form solutions, both theories can be solved numerically to as much precision as one desires.<br />
<br />
:The following table shows some approximate parameters for the planets. Note that Mercury has the smallest orbit, and the fastest speed. Precession of planets other than Mercury is extremely hard to measure, but measurements of the actual anomalous precessions are in good agreement.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref><br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Planet<br />
!Period, seconds x 10<sup>6</sup><br />
!Semimajor axis, meters x 10<sup>9</sup><br />
!Speed, meters/second x 10<sup>3</sup><br />
!Gravitational force, Newtons per kilogram<br />
!Anomalous precession, arcseconds per (Earth) century, pure Newtonian mechanics<br />
!Anomalous precession, Newtonian with exponent of 2.000000157<br />
!Anomalous precession, general relativity<br />
!Measured anomalous precession (estimated uncertainty)<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref><br />
|-<br />
|Mercury<br />
|7.57<br />
|58.9<br />
|48<br />
|.039<br />
|0<br />
|43<br />
|43<br />
|43.5(5)<br />
|-<br />
|Venus<br />
|19.6<br />
|108<br />
|35<br />
|.011<br />
|0<br />
|16.6<br />
|9<br />
|8(5)<br />
|-<br />
|Earth<br />
|31.6<br />
|150<br />
|30<br />
|.006<br />
|0<br />
|10.3<br />
|4<br />
|5(1)<br />
|-<br />
|Mars<br />
|59.3<br />
|227.9<br />
|24<br />
|.0025<br />
|0<br />
|5.5<br />
|1.4<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Jupiter<br />
|374<br />
|778.4<br />
|13<br />
|.0002<br />
|0<br />
|0.87<br />
|0.07<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Saturn<br />
|929<br />
|1426<br />
|9.7<br />
|.00006<br />
|0<br />
|0.35<br />
|0.014<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Uranus<br />
|2651<br />
|2870<br />
|6.8<br />
|.000016<br />
|0<br />
|0.12<br />
|0.002<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Neptune<br />
|5200<br />
|4498<br />
|5.5<br />
|.000007<br />
|0<br />
|0.063<br />
|0.0008<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
: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, and using very accurate calculations rather than the approximations given above, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values, as of 2008, are:<br />
::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)<br />
::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)<br />
::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)<br />
::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992) <br />
::: (Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijpers 2008])<br />
:These error bars, and that of the general relativity prediction, all overlap.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|The Shapiro effect: A spacecraft signal dipping into a gravity well around the [[Sun]] is delayed slightly.]]<br />
<br />
*Another is the ''Shapiro effect'', involving time delay in radio signals passing through the gravity well of the Sun or a planet. Various spacecraft have confirmed this.<br />
<br />
*Another is ''gravitational time dilation''. This is an effect separate from the time dilation of special relativity. It was tested by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959. No Nobel Prize was awarded for this. Professor Pound had previously shared in the 1952 Nobel for his contributions to Nuclear Magnetic Resonance imaging.<br />
<br />
*Later in the 20th century, even more subtle phenomena were tested. One was the phenomenon of ''gravitational radiation'', or "gravitational waves". These waves are incredibly difficult to observe, and had never been observed until 2015. But extremely dense binary pulsars radiate gravitational waves with sufficient energy loss that, even though we can't detect the waves from Earth, we can see the effect of the energy loss from the radiation. The extreme precision of the timing of pulses from pulsars makes it possible to observe their energy loss with great accuracy. Observations by Hulse and Taylor of the pulsar pair known as B1913+16, found the energy loss to be consistent with the predicted radiation. This required choosing orbital parameters to be consistent with observation, in the same way that Kepler chose orbital parameters to fit observed planetary motion to his theory. The rotating pulsars have since moved such that Earth is now out of the beams. The assumptions required for this, in addition to those listed above, were that pulsars behave consistently. The 1993 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded for this.<br />
<br />
*In late 2015 (and announced in 2016), the LIGO instruments directly detected gravitational waves allegedly from colliding [[black hole]]s. See [[Gravitational waves]]. Unlike the waves from orbiting pulsars, that could only be detected by the loss of rotation energy, the waves from colliding black holes were strong enough to be detected directly. The assumptions required for this, in addition to those listed above, were that the objects emitting the radiation (generally believed to be black holes, of course) satisfy the Schwartzschild solution to relativistic mechanics. The 2017 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded for this.<br />
<br />
*In 2018 an observation of the 3-body system PSR J0337+1715, consisting of 2 white dwarfs and a pulsar, was consistent with (and hence tended to confirm) general relativity under conditions of extremely high gravity, to enormous precision. The assumptions made were the same as those listed above. One of the researchers stated "If there is a difference [between observation and the prediction of the Equivalence Principle], it is no more than three parts in a million."<ref>https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/einstein-s-theory-relativity-passes-its-toughest-test-yet-ncna889021</ref><br />
<br />
*In 2018, observations of a star orbiting the supermassive black hole "Sagittarius A*" at the center of our galaxy, showed that the light was stretched from the black hole's gravity just as relativity predicted. The star orbits Sagittarius A* at speeds of up to 16 million miles per hour. This was the first observation of such intense gravity.<ref>https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/einstein-s-theory-relativity-aces-its-first-black-hole-test-ncna896641</ref><br />
<br />
*An additional test of general relativity was performed with radio signals to the Cassini spacecraft.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/nature01997.html</ref><br />
<br />
*Two other effects, ''geodetic precession'' (also known as "de Sitter precession"), and ''frame dragging'' (also known as the "Lense-Thirring effect") were tested by the "Gravity Probe B" satellite early in the 21st century.<ref>http://prl.aps.org/accepted/L/ea070Y8dQ491d22a28828c95f660a57ac82e7d8c0</ref><ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306430</ref><ref>http://www.nap.edu/html/gpb/summary.html</ref><ref>http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/73870/title/Gravity_Probe_B_finally_pays_off_</ref><ref>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/</ref><ref>http://einstein.stanford.edu/</ref><ref>http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/the-gravity-probe-b-bailout</ref><ref>http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/06/nasa-concludes-gravity-probe-b-space-time-experiment-proves-e/</ref> The precision required to observe this was phenomenal. The results were announced on May 4, 2011.<br />
<br />
{{clear}}<!-- make the Shapiro picture not obliterate the next section heading --><br />
<br />
==Predicted consequences of the Theories==<br />
===Time dilation===<br />
<!-- NOTE [[Time dilation]] redirects to this section, so the section name should not be changed without amending that redirect. --><br />
[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]<br />
One important consequence of relativity is that an observer in one reference frame will not in general observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" at the same rate as one in the observer's own frame.<br />
<br />
In [[special relativity]], where acceleration and gravitational effects are ignored, this can be derived using basic geometry. The result is that clocks in all other [[inertial frames of reference]] other than the one you are in appear to tick slower. This can be summarised by the well known phrase "moving clocks run slow".<br />
<br />
However, with [[general relativity]], there are similar effects such as gravitational time dilation where a clockthat is higher in a gravitational field runs faster. Often the effects of relativity are negligible. However the high precision required for the [[GPS|GPS system]] needs relativistic corrections. The rest of this section will concern only [[special relativity]].<br />
<br />
The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:<br />
<br />
<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{u^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math> <br />
<br />
Where <br />
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.<br />
:<math>u</math> is the relative velocity between the [[inertial frame of reference|reference frames]].<br />
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x10<sup>8</sup> m s<sup>-1</sup>).<br />
<br />
Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying muon decay. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic particles]] with a short [[halflife]] of 1.53 microseconds. When produced by interactions of [[cosmic rays]] in the upper atmosphere, they have a speed around 0.994c. By putting muon detectors at the top (D<sub>1</sub>) and bottom (D<sub>2</sub>) of a mountain with a separation of 1900 m, 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The time taken for a muon to travel from D<sub>1</sub> to D<sub>2</sub> as measured by a stationary observer is:<br />
<br />
<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math><br />
<br />
The fraction of muons arriving at D<sub>2</sub> in comparison to D<sub>1</sub> was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)<br />
<br />
Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then<br />
<br />
<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math><br />
<br />
This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.<br />
<br />
Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:<br />
<br />
<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><br />
<br />
This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.<br />
<br />
Since either [[inertial frame of reference|reference frame]] is equally valid, from the [[muon]]'s point of view it sees the [[earth]] approach it at nearly the [[speed of light]]. Hence time passes faster for the muon (slower for an observer on the ground). This appears to be a contradiction. However, the [[muon]] sees the height of the mountain contracted and so travels a shorter distance in its own frame. See length contraction below.<br />
<br />
====Time Dilation and Creation Science====<br />
<br />
{{main|Starlight problem#Humphreys.27_model}}<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
====Derivation of Time Dilation====<br />
<br />
Time dilation is most easily derived using the [[Lorentz transformation]]s, though geometrical solution is also straight forward. Using the transformation relating [[time]] between two [[Inertial frame of reference|frames of reference]], <math>t</math> and <math>t'</math>. We can find the time difference between two events that occur at the '''same''' location in space. The events shall be called event one and event 2. This results in the equations:<br />
<br />
<math>t'_1 = \gamma \left(t_1 - \frac{ux}{c^2} \right) </math><br/><br />
<math>t'_2 = \gamma \left(t_2 - \frac{ux}{c^2} \right) </math><br />
<br />
where<br />
:<math>\gamma</math> is the [[Lorentz factor]]<br />
:<math>u</math> is the relative [[speed]] between [[Inertial frame of reference|reference frames]]<br />
:<math>c</math> is the [[speed of light]]<br />
<br />
Subtracting the top equation from the bottom produces the time between the events as measured in each reference frame, so:<br />
<br />
<math>t'_2 - t'_1 = \gamma (t_2 - t_1)</math><br />
<br />
This the equation for time dilation and is the same equation as earlier.<br />
<br />
===Length contraction===<br />
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 along the direction parallel to the relative motion.<br />
<br />
The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:<br />
<br />
<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{u^{2}}{c^{2}}} = \frac{l_0}{\gamma}</math><br />
<br />
Where <br />
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in its own [[inertial frame of reference|frame of reference]].<br />
:<math>u</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.<br />
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light <math>3 \times 10^8 </math> m s<sup>-1</sup><br />
:<math>\gamma</math> is the [[Lorentz factor]]<br />
<br />
====Derivation====<br />
<br />
Length contraction may be derived using the [[Lorentz transformation]]s as with time dilation. This time we use the equation for <math>x</math>. In this case, the time in the undashed frame must be the '''same'''. Following the same procedure as above we find that:<br />
<br />
<math>x'_2 -x'_1 = \frac{x_2 - x_1}{\gamma}</math><br />
<br />
This is the same as above with <math>x_2 - x_1</math> and <math>x'_2 - x'_1</math> being the lengths in the undashed and dashed frames respectively. Again, geometrical arguments may be used to achieve the same result.<br />
<br />
===Mass increase===<br />
<br />
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><br />
<br />
Under this view, the mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:<br />
<br />
:<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math><br />
<br />
Where <br />
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object measured by an observer in the same reference frame as the object.<br />
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.<br />
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x10<sup>8</sup> ms<sup>-1</sup>).<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
In recent years most physicists have shifted away from Einstein's original reliance on relativistic mass and his suggestion that mass increases{{Citation needed|date=January 2012}}. Instead, most physicists today teach that <br />
<br />
:<math>F=\frac{d}{d\tau} p</math> <br />
<br />
where<br />
:<math>p</math> is the momentum defined by <math>\gamma m v</math><br />
:<math>\gamma</math> is the standard Lorentz factor<br />
:<math>\tau</math> is the proper time<br />
<br />
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.<br />
The abandonment by physicists of the concept of relativistic mass, however, has the consequence of undermining the traditional claim under relativity that<br />
<br />
:<math>m - m_0 = \frac{E}{c^2}</math> <br />
<br />
also popularly known as<br />
<br />
:<math>E = m c^2</math><br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
<math>||p||^2 = -p_x^2-p_y^2-p_z^2+E^2 = m_0^2c^4</math> <br />
<br />
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>).<br />
<br />
== Relativity in everyday life ==<br />
<br />
Due to the small speeds and gravitational fields in normal life, relativistic phenomena such as time dilation and length contraction are rarely observed. However some things in everyday life can be explained using relativity:<br />
<br />
*GPS, the satellites experience time dilation due to the difference in speed and the strength of gravitational field between the satellite and the ground. This is corrected by daily synchronisation between the ground and the atomic clocks in the satellites.<br />
*While most elemental metals such as [[silver]], [[zinc]] and [[mercury]] have a silver/grey appearance, some metals like [[gold]] and [[copper]] do not. This difference can be explained using relativistic quantum mechanics.<ref>http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/</ref><br />
<br />
== Paradoxes ==<br />
<br />
The predictions of the theory of relativity throw up a number of apparent paradoxes and anomalies relating to the effects of time dilatation and length contraction. Whilst these paradoxes are consistent with the theory, they are contrary to everyday human experience and therefore can seem like impossibilities.<br />
<br />
=== The Twin Paradox ===<br />
<br />
The twin paradox is usually stated as a thought experiment involving two twins, one of whom is sent on a long journey in a spacecraft travelling at close to the speed of light, whilst the other remains on Earth. Time dilatation means that the travelling twin, on his return to Earth, is younger that the twin who has remained at home. However, because neither twin is in a special position - each being in an inertial frame of reference - the reverse must also be true, and so the twin remaining on Earth must be younger. Hence each twin is younger than the other - a paradox.<br />
<br />
The problem can be resolved in two ways. One is to examine the effects of General Relativity: to come back to Earth, the travelling twin must undergo acceleration in order to reverse his course, causing temporal effects which make him permanently the younger. Alternatively, it can be explained entirely using Special Relativity and noting that the twins are not in symmetrical situations: the one on earth has remained in a single inertial frame of reference, whilst the travelling twin has travelled in two.<ref>http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm</ref> Note that the length of the trip cannot be increased as to make the acceleration negligible.<br />
<br />
=== The Ehrenfest Paradox ===<br />
<br />
The Ehrenfest Paradox considers a rigid wheel or disc rotating a bout its axis at high speed (somewhat like a bicycle wheel spinning freely on its axle). The rim of the wheel travels at close to the speed of light and therefore undergoes length contraction, whereas the radius (the spokes, for the bicycle wheel) does not. Hence the circumference is no longer equal to 2<big><math>\pi</math></big>r, which is paradoxical.<br />
<br />
The apparent paradox was finally resolved in 1975 by the Norwegian scientist Øyvind Grøn.<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=224955</ref><br />
<br />
==Speed "paradox"==<br />
<br />
This is not a paradox. It arises from failure to know or understand the "speed addition" formula. The formula tells how fast each observer measures the speed of the other observer when they are both traveling toward each other, as seen by some outside observer, at speeds <math>u</math> and <math>v</math>. Under classical mechanics, the result is just <math>u+v</math>. But the formula under special relativity is<br />
<br />
<math>\frac{u + v}{1 + \frac{uv}{c^2}}</math><br />
<br />
This formula is a consequence of the Lorentz transform. It is a well known part of the basic undergraduate physics curriculum.<br />
<br />
So, if two spacecraft are approaching each other, each traveling at what an outside observer would measure as half the speed of light, a person ignorant of how relativity works might think they each see the other coming toward them at the speed of light. But the formula shows that they actually see each other moving at <math>\frac{4}{5}</math> of the speed of light.<br />
<br />
If <math>u</math> and <math>v</math> are both less than the speed of light, one can show that the result of the addition formula will be also.<br />
<br />
== Variable Speed of Light ==<br />
<br />
The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like c, the speed of light in a vacuum, 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><br />
<br />
"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><br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
This apparent change in speed can be explained, however, by noting that the constant c refers to the speed of light in a vacuum, i.e., when it is unimpeded. The speed of light when traveling through physical media is, in fact, variable.<br />
<br />
"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><br />
<br />
==Pending research==<br />
<br />
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><br />
<br />
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><br />
<br />
== Political aspects of relativity ==<br />
<br />
Some [[liberal]] politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, [[Democratic]] [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[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, acknowledging help by 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> <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. A dubious 1993 Nobel prize in physics was awarded Hulse and Taylor for supposedly finding the first evidence of gravitational waves in the orbital decay of the binary pulsar PSR1913+16.<ref>Weisberg, Joel M.; Taylor, Joseph H. (2003), "The Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16"", in Bailes, M.; Nice, D. J.; Thorsett, S. E., Proceedings of "Radio Pulsars," Chania, Crete, August, 2002, ASP Conference Series</ref> A close reading of the paper reveals that that is based heavily on assumptions in trying to retrofit the data to the theory.<br />
<br />
===Government Support for Relativistic research===<br />
The Federal Government has funded the building of two gravity wave detectors: The first to test the principle, and the second (upgrade) to actually perform measurements. As a result of this work, on February 11, 2016, the LIGO team reported successful detection of gravitational waves caused by the merging of two black holes.<ref>https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211</ref><br />
<br />
{{Relativity}}<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Attempts to prove E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]]<br />
*[[Gravitational waves]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Science]]<br />
<br />
==External links ==<br />
*[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]<br />
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com Relativity Science Calculator - Learn Special Relativity Mathematics ] The mathematics of special relativity presented in as simple and comprehensive manner possible within philosophical and historical contexts.<br />
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/history_of_time_clocks.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - Philosophic Question: are clocks and time separable?]<br />
*[http://www.relativityscience.com/twin_clock_paradox.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - Twin Clock Paradox]</div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=1444820Theory of relativity2018-09-07T19:14:58Z<p>SamHB: /* Experimental and Observational Evidence Confirming Relativity */ assumptions</p>
<hr />
<div>''See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].''<br />
<br />
In physics, the '''theory of relativity''' is a scientific theory describing the effects due to the invariance of the speed of light. In particular, the meaning of space and time are altered by the motion of the observer. Relativity proposes time dilation and length contraction for observers moving relative to one another at very high ("relativistic") speeds.<br />
<br />
'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related mathematical theories in [[physics]]:<br />
[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|<br />
*"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>]]<br />
*'''[[Special theory of relativity|Special relativity]]''' (SR) is a theory to describe 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 put forward by [[Albert Einstein]]; its mathematical framework was independently developed and formalized 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><br />
<br />
*'''[[General theory of relativity|General Relativity]]''' (GR) is a theory to explain the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was originally developed by Einstein, with help from [[David Hilbert]] in its final mathematical formulation, as a generalization of the postulates of Special Relativity to account for non-inertial, accelerating observers, particularly those in a gravitational field.<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<ref>Stephen Hawking, ''Brief History of Time'' ("Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get."). Hawking was being kind. In fact, Eddington excluded data that did not fit his preconceived view. Further discrediting of Eddington's study was published by Earman, J., Glymour, C., Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci. 11, 49-85 (1980), and Collins, H. M., Pinch, T., The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science. Cambridge University Press (1993) (as cited in [http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070907/full/news070903-20.html#B2])</ref> claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 popularized the theory.<br />
<br />
These theories have augmented earlier approaches, such as [[Galilean Relativity]].<br />
<br />
The theory of relativity is defended with religious-like zeal, such that no college faculty tenure, Ph.D degree, or Nobel Prize is ever awarded to anyone who dares criticize the theory, as the example of denying a Nobel Prize to the most accomplished physicist of the 20th century, [[Robert Dicke]], illustrates. Other critics of the theory are [[Nikola Tesla]], who called it a "...magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists..."<ref>[http://www.plasmacosmology.net/tesla.html New York Times, July 11, 1935, p23, c8]</ref> and Louis Essen [1908-1997], the man credited with determining the speed of light. He wrote many fiery papers against it such as ''Relativity and Time Signals''<ref>http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3297</ref> and ''Relativity - Joke or Swindle?''.<ref>http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm</ref> Perhaps the most famous website opposing relativity is this one, with its [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. The cornerstone item in that page involves the experimental measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury that show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.<br />
<br />
The theory 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><br />
<br />
The theory 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> Special relativity assumes that all observers in inertial frames of reference will measure the same value for the speed of light, '''c''' and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent. These hypotheses that can never be fully tested. Relativity rejects Newton's [[action at a distance]], which is basic to Newtonian gravity and also found to be a consequence of [[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, since quantum effects would not be negligible (in the same way non-relativistic quantum mechanics is not valid when dealing with particles traveling near the speed of light). <br />
<br />
The "continuous" nature of space and time postulated by relativity is in conflict with the "discrete" nature in [[quantum mechanics]],<ref>For example, Relativity claims that space and time are smooth and continuous, while [[quantum mechanics]] suggests otherwise. [http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out.] Relativity also denies [[action-at-a-distance]], while quantum mechanics suggests otherwise. Relativity denies any role for chance, while quantum mechanics is heavily dependent on it.</ref> 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.<br />
<br />
Unlike [[Classical mechanics|Newtonian 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 (x<sup>2</sup> - c<sup>2</sup> t<sup>2</sup>). The instantaneous transmission of Newtonian gravitational effects also contradicts relativity.<br />
<br />
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]].<br />
<br />
== Special Relativity ==<br />
Lorentz and Poincaré 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 Poincaré's theory<ref>http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"</ref> in terms of two assumptions (postulates):<br />
<br />
# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''<br />
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''<br />
<br />
In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:<br />
# 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><br />
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.<br />
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).<br />
<br />
Or, in more concise, clearer terms, these assumptions are this:<br />
<br />
#there is no [[action at a distance]] (because that would make observations dependent on the frame of reference)<br />
#space and time are completely symmetric throughout the universe (because otherwise frames of reference would not be interchangeable)<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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 Earth's orbital motion through the [[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.)<br />
<br />
At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Lorentz-Poincaré relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The media-promoted equation ''[[E=mc²]]'', implausibly suggests a relationship between typically unrelated concepts of energy, the rest mass of a body and the speed of light.<br />
<br />
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 of 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).<br />
<br />
Many scientists have indicated problems with the postulates of special relativity. Paul Davies, formerly of Macquarie University and now at the University of Arizona believes that the speed of light has changed over time. Since the speed of light is a constant speed 'c' this indicates problems with the theory [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2181455.stm light speed]. Other engineers and scientists have written about problems in the basic set of special relativity equations. Based on the ideas of not Einstein but of the scientist Fitzgerald as well as others, a length contraction effect was predicted as an explanation of the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect Earth's orbital motion. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss, a computer engineer, invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20120303075834/http://www.relativitycollapse.com/ Ad for the book ''The Collapse of Special Relativity</ref><br />
<br />
== General Relativity ==<br />
<br />
::::''See the [[General theory of relativity]] page for more in-depth coverage of this topic.''<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The anomalous precession of Mercury's [[perihelion]] seems to support the Theory of General Relativity, though that is disputed on the[[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. Keep in mind that the precession in question is the ''"anomalous"''<br />
precession after the effects of other planets' gravitation action has been compensated for. Those other effects are much larger, and are purely Newtonian in nature. There was another explanation based on Newtonian gravity, involving a slight alteration to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, but it was discarded when it gave very bad results for the Moon's orbit.<br />
<br />
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>[[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.<br />
<br />
::''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><br />
<br />
The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
==Lack of evidence for Relativity==<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Claims that relativity was used to develop the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) are false. A 1996 article explains:<br />
<br />
:"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><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. While Van Flandern believed that relativity is unnecessary for GPS, he also asserted that observations of GPS satellites supported both general and special relativity, writing that "we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days," with unrelated factors interfering with longer-term observations.<ref>http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp</ref><br />
<br />
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, likely because in Newtonian Mechanics every clock in the universe keeps time at the same rate regardless of velocity, acceleration, or the presence or absence of force.<br />
<br />
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><br />
<br />
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, but only if we treat light as capable of being accelerated and decelerated like ordinary matter, which is contrary to all measurements and observations to date.<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. <br />
<br />
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 so long as they do not undergo accelerations near the speed of light or enter any massive gravity wells.<ref>There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe.</ref><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. While general relativity was developed on purely theoretical grounds, it was soon discovered that it explained these precession observations.<ref>http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000</ref><ref>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node117.html</ref> Newton's theory can also explain the Mercury precession by making tiny adjustments to parameters in the gravitational equation, but doing so would give the same precession for all orbiting bodies everywhere, a phenomenon which is not observed.<br />
<br />
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 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><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity==<br />
<br />
Predictions of general relativity turn out to be obscure and difficult to test. The two most famous predictions were the bending of light in a gravitational field and the precession of the perihelia of orbiting planets.<br />
<br />
*The first of these was famously tested during a total eclipse in 1919. That test was somewhat muddled by an incorrect initial calculation, by several people including Einstein himself, of what the effect would be, and some "cherry picking" of the data to be used.<ref>''Einstein's Luck'', John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9</ref> The data selection could be considered "manipulation" or "fudging", by a person (Arthur Eddington) who had a personal stake in the outcome. His analysis techniques would not pass muster today. The announcement of this test, flawed though it was, made Einstein world-famous.<ref>[http://einstein.stanford.edu/Library/images/lightsAllAskewBig.jpg The New York Times, Nov. 10, 1919]</ref><ref>[https://www.worldbooklearning.com/how-did-an-eclipse-help-make-albert-einstein-famous/ How did an eclipse help make Albert Einstein famous]</ref><ref>[https://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post/44934715350/how-albert-einstein-became-a-celebrity How Albert Einstein became a celebrity]</ref><ref>[https://www.sciencealert.com/general-relativity-experiment-confirms-accuracy-for-galaxies "The public's mind was blown by the results, effectively turning Albert Einstein into a household name and cementing the concept of general relativity into physics books."]</ref><br />
<br />
:It should be noted that pre-relativistic (Newtonian) physics may also predict a bending, of half the observed value, depending on whether one uses the 17th century "corpuscular" formulation or the 19th century "wave" formulation.<br />
<br />
:Relying on the usual assumptions (Newtonian mechanics, Galilean relativity, conservation of energy and momentum, the universality of the speed of light (that is, special relativity), the Equivalence Principle, and the geodesic equation in empty space (that is, general relativity), and the proper calibration of the instruments, observations of later eclipses, and the observations of quasar 3C273, confirm predictions of the theory.<br />
<br />
:No [[Nobel Prize]] was was awarded for this. A few years later Einstein won the Nobel Prize for the (unrelated) [[Photoelectric effect]].<br />
<br />
*The second "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.<br />
<br />
:No Nobel Prize was was awarded for this.<br />
<br />
==Experimental and Observational Evidence Confirming Relativity==<br />
<br />
The different effects predicted by special relativity, compared to classical formulations, are extremely tiny. Most relativistic effects are negligible at the speeds of ordinary phenomena observed by humans. The effects only become significant when the speeds involved are a significant fraction of the speed of light, which is <math>3 \times 10^8</math> meters per second&mdash;such speeds are called ''relativistic''. (However, it's worth noting that ordinary magnetism can be considered an effect of relativity, dictated by the need for electrostatic theory to be correct under relativity. The speed of light in fact appears in the formulas ([[Maxwell's Equations]]) governing electricity and magnetism, though these equations were developed long before relativity was proposed.)<br />
<br />
Because the effects of relativity are so tiny, scientists have been devising sophisticated and sensitive tests ever since the theory was formulated in 1905.<br />
<br />
It is important to be aware that it is fairly rare for an experiment to '''prove''' a theory. In general, 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 a theory, it lends credence to that theory. When no other plausible theory can explain 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 was at one time another competing theory&mdash;the Newcomb-Hall exponent-fudging theory. That one didn't hold up for things other than Mercury. No other theory has come up explaining the phenomenon; GR has withstood the test of time. That goes a long way toward validating GR. There are many other observations and experiments, covering a wide variety of phenomena, described below&mdash;bending of light, gravitational time dilation, gravitational waves, geodetic precession, Shapiro effect, etc. It is these widely disparate observations, and the lack of any alternative theories explaining any of them, that lead people to say that GR is "experimentally validated".<br />
<br />
While the experimental tests for General Relativity are rather esoteric, those for Special Relativity are fairly straightforward. So much so that the Michelson-Morley experiment could be said to have single-handedly established the case for SR&mdash;the logical syllogism leading from Michelson-Morley to SR and the Lorentz transform was fairly clear once people saw it.<br />
<br />
When analyzing an experiment to see whether it validates a theory, one must be careful not to assume the theory in one's reasoning. For establishing Special Relativity with the Michelson-Morley experiment, the assumptions are:<br />
<br />
#Newtonian and Galilean mechanics.<br />
#Galilean relativity, that is, the notion that there is no absolute frame of reference.<br />
#The universality of the speed of light.<br />
#And, of course, proper calibration of the equipment.<br />
#:The third one was the observation that Michelson and Morley made.<br />
#:<br />
#:<br />
#:For the derivation of E=mc², these assumptions are added:<br />
#:<br />
#Conservation of energy.<br />
#Conservation of momentum.<br />
#:All of the assumptions listed above constitute SR.<br />
#:<br />
#:It would be nearly inconceivable to derive GR without SR. Gravitational time dilation, for example, requires a lot of information coming from SR. <br />
#:So, for the experiments listed below for GR, the assumptions are the 6 above plus:<br />
#The Equivalence Principle.<br />
#:So the experiments below for GR are really just establishing that the Equivalence Principle is valid, and that GR follows logically from that.<br />
<br />
The most famous experiment, and the one that is commonly cited in textbooks as the experiment that established the case for relativity,<ref>Though relativity did not actually originate from this experiment</ref> was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]]. This showed that all observers will obtain the same measured value for the speed of light (3x10<sup>8</sup> meters per second) no matter what their state of motion. This is the first of the two fundamental principles:<br />
#''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''<br />
#''The laws of physics are identical in all reference frames.''<br />
(The second is just a restatement of Galilean relativity, that is, the "common sense" that had been accepted for centuries.)<br />
A naive "common sense" interpretation of Galilean relativity would require that measurements of the speed of light (or anything else) by different observers would get results that differ by the observers' relative speeds, and hence that principle #1 can't be true. Special relativity fixes this apparent paradox.<br />
<br />
All of special relativity derives for these two principles, plus assumptions of exact conservation of momentum and energy in all cases.<br />
<br />
*At the end of Einstein's original 1905 paper on the subject<ref>http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?"</ref>, he speculates on the possibility that the equation <math>E = m c^2</math>, which would normally be very hard to verify, could be verified with the extremely high energies of the newly discovered phenomenon of radioactivity.<ref>This equation is not related to [[quantum mechanics]].</ref> In the 1910s, with the invention of the mass spectrometer, it became possible to measure masses of nuclei accurately. This led to the clearing up of the mystery of atomic masses not being exact integers,and strongly suggested the existence of a "mass defect" (or "packing fraction") consistent with the mass-energy equivalence. In the 1930s, experiments with known nuclear reactions showed a very accurate correlation between the masses of the nuclei involved and the energy released. See [[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]].<br />
<br />
*Another prediction of special relativity was time dilation in rapidly moving objects. This effect was most famously verified in the anomalously slow decay of relativistic cosmic muons.<ref>Some have suggested that other explanations are possible for this effect. We are trying to track this down.</ref> Time dilation has since been verified many times, and is routinely taken into account in all high-energy nuclear physics experiments, as in Hadron collision experiments.<ref>Experiments specifically designed to check dilation are rarely conducted any more.</ref><br />
<br />
As the 20th century progressed, tests of general relativity were proposed.<br />
<br />
*One important "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.<br />
<br />
:This created quite a problem&mdash;physicists by then were accustomed to having their theories check out very accurately. One proposal that was made, by Simon Newcomb and Asaph Hall, was that the exponent of the radius in the gravitational formula wasn't exactly 2. He showed that, by choosing an exponent of <math>2+\delta</math>, the precession, as a fraction of a full orbit per planet's year, is <math>\delta/2</math>. By setting <math>\delta</math> to .000000157, that is, an exponent of 2.000000157, Newcomb was able to get a precession of .000000078 revolutions per Mercury year, or 43 arcseconds per Earth year. Whatever value is chosen for <math>\delta\,</math>, it gives the same precession, per revolution, for all orbiting bodies, but gravitational effects from other planets diminish that effect the further the planet is from the sun.<br />
<br />
:The approximation given at the end of Einstein's 1916 paper <ref>http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_GRelativity_1916.pdf "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity"</ref> is <math>24 \pi^3\frac{a^2}{T^2c^2 (1-e^2)}</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where a is the semi-major axis, T is the length of the planet's year, and e is the eccentricity. A much simpler, but less accurate, approximation, designed to show how the precession relates to the planet's speed, is <math>3{}v^2/c^2</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where <math>v</math> is the planet's average orbital speed. These are just approximations. Getting an accurate value requires integrating the geodesic equation where Ricci's tensor is zero.<br />
<br />
:While Newcomb's theory, and general relativity, don't lead to closed-form solutions, both theories can be solved numerically to as much precision as one desires.<br />
<br />
:The following table shows some approximate parameters for the planets. Note that Mercury has the smallest orbit, and the fastest speed. Precession of planets other than Mercury is extremely hard to measure, but measurements of the actual anomalous precessions are in good agreement.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref><br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Planet<br />
!Period, seconds x 10<sup>6</sup><br />
!Semimajor axis, meters x 10<sup>9</sup><br />
!Speed, meters/second x 10<sup>3</sup><br />
!Gravitational force, Newtons per kilogram<br />
!Anomalous precession, arcseconds per (Earth) century, pure Newtonian mechanics<br />
!Anomalous precession, Newtonian with exponent of 2.000000157<br />
!Anomalous precession, general relativity<br />
!Measured anomalous precession (estimated uncertainty)<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref><br />
|-<br />
|Mercury<br />
|7.57<br />
|58.9<br />
|48<br />
|.039<br />
|0<br />
|43<br />
|43<br />
|43.5(5)<br />
|-<br />
|Venus<br />
|19.6<br />
|108<br />
|35<br />
|.011<br />
|0<br />
|16.6<br />
|9<br />
|8(5)<br />
|-<br />
|Earth<br />
|31.6<br />
|150<br />
|30<br />
|.006<br />
|0<br />
|10.3<br />
|4<br />
|5(1)<br />
|-<br />
|Mars<br />
|59.3<br />
|227.9<br />
|24<br />
|.0025<br />
|0<br />
|5.5<br />
|1.4<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Jupiter<br />
|374<br />
|778.4<br />
|13<br />
|.0002<br />
|0<br />
|0.87<br />
|0.07<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Saturn<br />
|929<br />
|1426<br />
|9.7<br />
|.00006<br />
|0<br />
|0.35<br />
|0.014<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Uranus<br />
|2651<br />
|2870<br />
|6.8<br />
|.000016<br />
|0<br />
|0.12<br />
|0.002<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|Neptune<br />
|5200<br />
|4498<br />
|5.5<br />
|.000007<br />
|0<br />
|0.063<br />
|0.0008<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
<br />
: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, and using very accurate calculations rather than the approximations given above, general relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04 arcseconds per century. Some observed values, as of 2008, are:<br />
::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)<br />
::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)<br />
::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)<br />
::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992) <br />
::: (Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijpers 2008])<br />
:These error bars, and that of the general relativity prediction, all overlap.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|The Shapiro effect: A spacecraft signal dipping into a gravity well around the [[Sun]] is delayed slightly.]]<br />
<br />
*Another is the ''Shapiro effect'', involving time delay in radio signals passing through the gravity well of the Sun or a planet. Various spacecraft have confirmed this.<br />
<br />
*Another is ''gravitational time dilation''. This is an effect separate from the time dilation of special relativity. It was tested by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959. No Nobel Prize was was awarded for this. Professor Pound had previously shared in the 1952 Nobel for his contributions to Nuclear Magnetic Resonance imaging.<br />
<br />
*Later in the 20th century, even more subtle phenomena were tested. One was the phenomenon of ''gravitational radiation'', or "gravitational waves". These waves are incredibly difficult to observe, and had never been observed until 2015. But extremely dense binary pulsars radiate gravitational waves with sufficient energy loss that, even though we can't detect the waves from Earth, we can see the effect of the energy loss from the radiation. The extreme precision of the timing of pulses from pulsars makes it possible to observe their energy loss with great accuracy. Observations by Hulse and Taylor of the pulsar pair known as B1913+16, if assumptions are made,<ref>Similar to the way Kepler chose orbital parameters to fit observed planetary motion to his theory</ref> could make the energy loss appear consistent with the predicted radiation. The rotating pulsars have moved such that Earth is now out of the beams, so those observations have been discontinued.<br />
<br />
*In late 2015 (and announced in 2016), the LIGO instruments directly detected gravitational waves allegedly from colliding [[black hole]]s. See [[Gravitational waves]]. Unlike the waves from orbiting pulsars, that could only be detected by the loss of rotation energy, the waves from colliding black holes were strong enough to be detected directly. There is inherent circularity in this approach, however, because it relies on assumptions about the existence and nature of black holes which cannot be verified independently.<br />
<br />
*In 2018 an observation of the 3-body system PSR J0337+1715, consisting of 2 white dwarfs and a pulsar, was consistent with (and hence tended to confirm) general relativity under conditions of extremely high gravity, to enormous precision. The assumptions made were the same as those listed above for the 1919 eclipse analysis. One of the researchers stated "If there is a difference [between observation and the prediction of the Equivalence Principle], it is no more than three parts in a million."<ref>https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/einstein-s-theory-relativity-passes-its-toughest-test-yet-ncna889021</ref><br />
<br />
*In 2018, observations of a star orbiting the supermassive black hole "Sagittarius A*" at the center of our galaxy, showed that the light was stretched from the black hole's gravity just as relativity predicted. The star orbits Sagittarius A* at speeds of up to 16 million miles per hour. This was the first observation of such intense gravity.<ref>https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/einstein-s-theory-relativity-aces-its-first-black-hole-test-ncna896641</ref><br />
<br />
*An additional test of general relativity was performed with radio signals to the Cassini spacecraft.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/nature01997.html</ref><br />
<br />
*Two other effects, ''geodetic precession'' (also known as "de Sitter precession"), and ''frame dragging'' (also known as the "Lense-Thirring effect") were tested by the "Gravity Probe B" satellite early in the 21st century.<ref>http://prl.aps.org/accepted/L/ea070Y8dQ491d22a28828c95f660a57ac82e7d8c0</ref><ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306430</ref><ref>http://www.nap.edu/html/gpb/summary.html</ref><ref>http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/73870/title/Gravity_Probe_B_finally_pays_off_</ref><ref>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/</ref><ref>http://einstein.stanford.edu/</ref><ref>http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/the-gravity-probe-b-bailout</ref><ref>http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/06/nasa-concludes-gravity-probe-b-space-time-experiment-proves-e/</ref> The precision required to observe this was phenomenal. The results were announced on May 4, 2011.<br />
<br />
{{clear}}<!-- make the Shapiro picture not obliterate the next section heading --><br />
<br />
==Predicted consequences of the Theories==<br />
===Time dilation===<br />
<!-- NOTE [[Time dilation]] redirects to this section, so the section name should not be changed without amending that redirect. --><br />
[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]<br />
One important consequence of relativity is that an observer in one reference frame will not in general observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" at the same rate as one in the observer's own frame.<br />
<br />
In [[special relativity]], where acceleration and gravitational effects are ignored, this can be derived using basic geometry. The result is that clocks in all other [[inertial frames of reference]] other than the one you are in appear to tick slower. This can be summarised by the well known phrase "moving clocks run slow".<br />
<br />
However, with [[general relativity]], there are similar effects such as gravitational time dilation where a clockthat is higher in a gravitational field runs faster. Often the effects of relativity are negligible. However the high precision required for the [[GPS|GPS system]] needs relativistic corrections. The rest of this section will concern only [[special relativity]].<br />
<br />
The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:<br />
<br />
<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{u^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math> <br />
<br />
Where <br />
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.<br />
:<math>u</math> is the relative velocity between the [[inertial frame of reference|reference frames]].<br />
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x10<sup>8</sup> m s<sup>-1</sup>).<br />
<br />
Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying muon decay. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic particles]] with a short [[halflife]] of 1.53 microseconds. When produced by interactions of [[cosmic rays]] in the upper atmosphere, they have a speed around 0.994c. By putting muon detectors at the top (D<sub>1</sub>) and bottom (D<sub>2</sub>) of a mountain with a separation of 1900 m, 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The time taken for a muon to travel from D<sub>1</sub> to D<sub>2</sub> as measured by a stationary observer is:<br />
<br />
<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math><br />
<br />
The fraction of muons arriving at D<sub>2</sub> in comparison to D<sub>1</sub> was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)<br />
<br />
Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then<br />
<br />
<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math><br />
<br />
This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.<br />
<br />
Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:<br />
<br />
<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><br />
<br />
This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.<br />
<br />
Since either [[inertial frame of reference|reference frame]] is equally valid, from the [[muon]]'s point of view it sees the [[earth]] approach it at nearly the [[speed of light]]. Hence time passes faster for the muon (slower for an observer on the ground). This appears to be a contradiction. However, the [[muon]] sees the height of the mountain contracted and so travels a shorter distance in its own frame. See length contraction below.<br />
<br />
====Time Dilation and Creation Science====<br />
<br />
{{main|Starlight problem#Humphreys.27_model}}<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
====Derivation of Time Dilation====<br />
<br />
Time dilation is most easily derived using the [[Lorentz transformation]]s, though geometrical solution is also straight forward. Using the transformation relating [[time]] between two [[Inertial frame of reference|frames of reference]], <math>t</math> and <math>t'</math>. We can find the time difference between two events that occur at the '''same''' location in space. The events shall be called event one and event 2. This results in the equations:<br />
<br />
<math>t'_1 = \gamma \left(t_1 - \frac{ux}{c^2} \right) </math><br/><br />
<math>t'_2 = \gamma \left(t_2 - \frac{ux}{c^2} \right) </math><br />
<br />
where<br />
:<math>\gamma</math> is the [[Lorentz factor]]<br />
:<math>u</math> is the relative [[speed]] between [[Inertial frame of reference|reference frames]]<br />
:<math>c</math> is the [[speed of light]]<br />
<br />
Subtracting the top equation from the bottom produces the time between the events as measured in each reference frame, so:<br />
<br />
<math>t'_2 - t'_1 = \gamma (t_2 - t_1)</math><br />
<br />
This the equation for time dilation and is the same equation as earlier.<br />
<br />
===Length contraction===<br />
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 along the direction parallel to the relative motion.<br />
<br />
The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:<br />
<br />
<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{u^{2}}{c^{2}}} = \frac{l_0}{\gamma}</math><br />
<br />
Where <br />
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in its own [[inertial frame of reference|frame of reference]].<br />
:<math>u</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.<br />
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light <math>3 \times 10^8 </math> m s<sup>-1</sup><br />
:<math>\gamma</math> is the [[Lorentz factor]]<br />
<br />
====Derivation====<br />
<br />
Length contraction may be derived using the [[Lorentz transformation]]s as with time dilation. This time we use the equation for <math>x</math>. In this case, the time in the undashed frame must be the '''same'''. Following the same procedure as above we find that:<br />
<br />
<math>x'_2 -x'_1 = \frac{x_2 - x_1}{\gamma}</math><br />
<br />
This is the same as above with <math>x_2 - x_1</math> and <math>x'_2 - x'_1</math> being the lengths in the undashed and dashed frames respectively. Again, geometrical arguments may be used to achieve the same result.<br />
<br />
===Mass increase===<br />
<br />
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><br />
<br />
Under this view, the mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:<br />
<br />
:<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math><br />
<br />
Where <br />
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object measured by an observer in the same reference frame as the object.<br />
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.<br />
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x10<sup>8</sup> ms<sup>-1</sup>).<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
In recent years most physicists have shifted away from Einstein's original reliance on relativistic mass and his suggestion that mass increases{{Citation needed|date=January 2012}}. Instead, most physicists today teach that <br />
<br />
:<math>F=\frac{d}{d\tau} p</math> <br />
<br />
where<br />
:<math>p</math> is the momentum defined by <math>\gamma m v</math><br />
:<math>\gamma</math> is the standard Lorentz factor<br />
:<math>\tau</math> is the proper time<br />
<br />
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.<br />
The abandonment by physicists of the concept of relativistic mass, however, has the consequence of undermining the traditional claim under relativity that<br />
<br />
:<math>m - m_0 = \frac{E}{c^2}</math> <br />
<br />
also popularly known as<br />
<br />
:<math>E = m c^2</math><br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
<math>||p||^2 = -p_x^2-p_y^2-p_z^2+E^2 = m_0^2c^4</math> <br />
<br />
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>).<br />
<br />
== Relativity in everyday life ==<br />
<br />
Due to the small speeds and gravitational fields in normal life, relativistic phenomena such as time dilation and length contraction are rarely observed. However some things in everyday life can be explained using relativity:<br />
<br />
*GPS, the satellites experience time dilation due to the difference in speed and the strength of gravitational field between the satellite and the ground. This is corrected by daily synchronisation between the ground and the atomic clocks in the satellites.<br />
*While most elemental metals such as [[silver]], [[zinc]] and [[mercury]] have a silver/grey appearance, some metals like [[gold]] and [[copper]] do not. This difference can be explained using relativistic quantum mechanics.<ref>http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/</ref><br />
<br />
== Paradoxes ==<br />
<br />
The predictions of the theory of relativity throw up a number of apparent paradoxes and anomalies relating to the effects of time dilatation and length contraction. Whilst these paradoxes are consistent with the theory, they are contrary to everyday human experience and therefore can seem like impossibilities.<br />
<br />
=== The Twin Paradox ===<br />
<br />
The twin paradox is usually stated as a thought experiment involving two twins, one of whom is sent on a long journey in a spacecraft travelling at close to the speed of light, whilst the other remains on Earth. Time dilatation means that the travelling twin, on his return to Earth, is younger that the twin who has remained at home. However, because neither twin is in a special position - each being in an inertial frame of reference - the reverse must also be true, and so the twin remaining on Earth must be younger. Hence each twin is younger than the other - a paradox.<br />
<br />
The problem can be resolved in two ways. One is to examine the effects of General Relativity: to come back to Earth, the travelling twin must undergo acceleration in order to reverse his course, causing temporal effects which make him permanently the younger. Alternatively, it can be explained entirely using Special Relativity and noting that the twins are not in symmetrical situations: the one on earth has remained in a single inertial frame of reference, whilst the travelling twin has travelled in two.<ref>http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm</ref> Note that the length of the trip cannot be increased as to make the acceleration negligible.<br />
<br />
=== The Ehrenfest Paradox ===<br />
<br />
The Ehrenfest Paradox considers a rigid wheel or disc rotating a bout its axis at high speed (somewhat like a bicycle wheel spinning freely on its axle). The rim of the wheel travels at close to the speed of light and therefore undergoes length contraction, whereas the radius (the spokes, for the bicycle wheel) does not. Hence the circumference is no longer equal to 2<big><math>\pi</math></big>r, which is paradoxical.<br />
<br />
The apparent paradox was finally resolved in 1975 by the Norwegian scientist Øyvind Grøn.<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=224955</ref><br />
<br />
==Speed "paradox"==<br />
<br />
This is not a paradox. It arises from failure to know or understand the "speed addition" formula. The formula tells how fast each observer measures the speed of the other observer when they are both traveling toward each other, as seen by some outside observer, at speeds <math>u</math> and <math>v</math>. Under classical mechanics, the result is just <math>u+v</math>. But the formula under special relativity is<br />
<br />
<math>\frac{u + v}{1 + \frac{uv}{c^2}}</math><br />
<br />
This formula is a consequence of the Lorentz transform. It is a well known part of the basic undergraduate physics curriculum.<br />
<br />
So, if two spacecraft are approaching each other, each traveling at what an outside observer would measure as half the speed of light, a person ignorant of how relativity works might think they each see the other coming toward them at the speed of light. But the formula shows that they actually see each other moving at <math>\frac{4}{5}</math> of the speed of light.<br />
<br />
If <math>u</math> and <math>v</math> are both less than the speed of light, one can show that the result of the addition formula will be also.<br />
<br />
== Variable Speed of Light ==<br />
<br />
The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like c, the speed of light in a vacuum, 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><br />
<br />
"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><br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
This apparent change in speed can be explained, however, by noting that the constant c refers to the speed of light in a vacuum, i.e., when it is unimpeded. The speed of light when traveling through physical media is, in fact, variable.<br />
<br />
"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><br />
<br />
==Pending research==<br />
<br />
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><br />
<br />
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><br />
<br />
== Political aspects of relativity ==<br />
<br />
Some [[liberal]] politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, [[Democratic]] [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[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, acknowledging help by 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> <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. A dubious 1993 Nobel prize in physics was awarded Hulse and Taylor for supposedly finding the first evidence of gravitational waves in the orbital decay of the binary pulsar PSR1913+16.<ref>Weisberg, Joel M.; Taylor, Joseph H. (2003), "The Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16"", in Bailes, M.; Nice, D. J.; Thorsett, S. E., Proceedings of "Radio Pulsars," Chania, Crete, August, 2002, ASP Conference Series</ref> A close reading of the paper reveals that that is based heavily on assumptions in trying to retrofit the data to the theory.<br />
<br />
===Government Support for Relativistic research===<br />
The Federal Government has funded the building of two gravity wave detectors: The first to test the principle, and the second (upgrade) to actually perform measurements. As a result of this work, on February 11, 2016, the LIGO team reported successful detection of gravitational waves caused by the merging of two black holes.<ref>https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211</ref><br />
<br />
{{Relativity}}<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Attempts to prove E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br />
*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]<br />
*[[Quantitative Analysis of Alpha Decay]]<br />
*[[Gravitational waves]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Physics]]<br />
[[Category:Science]]<br />
<br />
==External links ==<br />
*[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]<br />
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com Relativity Science Calculator - Learn Special Relativity Mathematics ] The mathematics of special relativity presented in as simple and comprehensive manner possible within philosophical and historical contexts.<br />
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/history_of_time_clocks.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - Philosophic Question: are clocks and time separable?]<br />
*[http://www.relativityscience.com/twin_clock_paradox.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - Twin Clock Paradox]</div>SamHBhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=1444806Theory of relativity2018-09-07T18:14:03Z<p>SamHB: /* Experimental and Observational Evidence Confirming Relativity */ Explain what we mean by "validate". I'll do the assumptions next.</p>
<hr />
<div>''See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].''<br />
<br />
In physics, the '''theory of relativity''' is a scientific theory describing the effects due to the invariance of the speed of light. In particular, the meaning of space and time are altered by the motion of the observer. Relativity proposes time dilation and length contraction for observers moving relative to one another at very high ("relativistic") speeds.<br />
<br />
'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related mathematical theories in [[physics]]:<br />
[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|<br />
*"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>]]<br />
*'''[[Special theory of relativity|Special relativity]]''' (SR) is a theory to describe 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 put forward by [[Albert Einstein]]; its mathematical framework was independently developed and formalized 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><br />
<br />
*'''[[General theory of relativity|General Relativity]]''' (GR) is a theory to explain the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was originally developed by Einstein, with help from [[David Hilbert]] in its final mathematical formulation, as a generalization of the postulates of Special Relativity to account for non-inertial, accelerating observers, particularly those in a gravitational field.<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<ref>Stephen Hawking, ''Brief History of Time'' ("Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get."). Hawking was being kind. In fact, Eddington excluded data that did not fit his preconceived view. Further discrediting of Eddington's study was published by Earman, J., Glymour, C., Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci. 11, 49-85 (1980), and Collins, H. M., Pinch, T., The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science. Cambridge University Press (1993) (as cited in [http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070907/full/news070903-20.html#B2])</ref> claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 popularized the theory.<br />
<br />
These theories have augmented earlier approaches, such as [[Galilean Relativity]].<br />
<br />
The theory of relativity is defended with religious-like zeal, such that no college faculty tenure, Ph.D degree, or Nobel Prize is ever awarded to anyone who dares criticize the theory, as the example of denying a Nobel Prize to the most accomplished physicist of the 20th century, [[Robert Dicke]], illustrates. Other critics of the theory are [[Nikola Tesla]], who called it a "...magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists..."<ref>[http://www.plasmacosmology.net/tesla.html New York Times, July 11, 1935, p23, c8]</ref> and Louis Essen [1908-1997], the man credited with determining the speed of light. He wrote many fiery papers against it such as ''Relativity and Time Signals''<ref>http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3297</ref> and ''Relativity - Joke or Swindle?''.<ref>http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm</ref> Perhaps the most famous website opposing relativity is this one, with its [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. The cornerstone item in that page involves the experimental measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury that show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.<br />
<br />
The theory 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><br />
<br />
The theory 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> Special relativity assumes that all observers in inertial frames of reference will measure the same value for the speed of light, '''c''' and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent. These hypotheses that can never be fully tested. Relativity rejects Newton's [[action at a distance]], which is basic to Newtonian gravity and also found to be a consequence of [[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, since quantum effects would not be negligible (in the same way non-relativistic quantum mechanics is not valid when dealing with particles traveling near the speed of light). <br />
<br />
The "continuous" nature of space and time postulated by relativity is in conflict with the "discrete" nature in [[quantum mechanics]],<ref>For example, Relativity claims that space and time are smooth and continuous, while [[quantum mechanics]] suggests otherwise. [http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out.] Relativity also denies [[action-at-a-distance]], while quantum mechanics suggests otherwise. Relativity denies any role for chance, while quantum mechanics is heavily dependent on it.</ref> 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.<br />
<br />
Unlike [[Classical mechanics|Newtonian 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 (x<sup>2</sup> - c<sup>2</sup> t<sup>2</sup>). The instantaneous transmission of Newtonian gravitational effects also contradicts relativity.<br />
<br />
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]].<br />
<br />
== Special Relativity ==<br />
Lorentz and Poincaré 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 Poincaré's theory<ref>http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"</ref> in terms of two assumptions (postulates):<br />
<br />
# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''<br />
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''<br />
<br />
In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:<br />
# 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><br />
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.<br />
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).<br />
<br />
Or, in more concise, clearer terms, these assumptions are this:<br />
<br />
#there is no [[action at a distance]] (because that would make observations dependent on the frame of reference)<br />
#space and time are completely symmetric throughout the universe (because otherwise frames of reference would not be interchangeable)<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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 Earth's orbital motion through the [[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.)<br />
<br />
At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Lorentz-Poincaré relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The media-promoted equation ''[[E=mc²]]'', implausibly suggests a relationship between typically unrelated concepts of energy, the rest mass of a body and the speed of light.<br />
<br />
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 of 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).<br />
<br />
Many scientists have indicated problems with the postulates of special relativity. Paul Davies, formerly of Macquarie University and now at the University of Arizona believes that the speed of light has changed over time. Since the speed of light is a constant speed 'c' this indicates problems with the theory [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2181455.stm light speed]. Other engineers and scientists have written about problems in the basic set of special relativity equations. Based on the ideas of not Einstein but of the scientist Fitzgerald as well as others, a length contraction effect was predicted as an explanation of the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect Earth's orbital motion. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss, a computer engineer, invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20120303075834/http://www.relativitycollapse.com/ Ad for the book ''The Collapse of Special Relativity</ref><br />
<br />
== General Relativity ==<br />
<br />
::::''See the [[General theory of relativity]] page for more in-depth coverage of this topic.''<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The anomalous precession of Mercury's [[perihelion]] seems to support the Theory of General Relativity, though that is disputed on the[[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. Keep in mind that the precession in question is the ''"anomalous"''<br />
precession after the effects of other planets' gravitation action has been compensated for. Those other effects are much larger, and are purely Newtonian in nature. There was another explanation based on Newtonian gravity, involving a slight alteration to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, but it was discarded when it gave very bad results for the Moon's orbit.<br />
<br />
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>[[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.<br />
<br />
::''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><br />
<br />
The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
==Lack of evidence for Relativity==<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Claims that relativity was used to develop the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) are false. A 1996 article explains:<br />
<br />
:"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><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. While Van Flandern believed that relativity is unnecessary for GPS, he also asserted that observations of GPS satellites supported both general and special relativity, writing that "we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days," with unrelated factors interfering with longer-term observations.<ref>http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp</ref><br />
<br />
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, likely because in Newtonian Mechanics every clock in the universe keeps time at the same rate regardless of velocity, acceleration, or the presence or absence of force.<br />
<br />
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><br />
<br />
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, but only if we treat light as capable of being accelerated and decelerated like ordinary matter, which is contrary to all measurements and observations to date.<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. <br />
<br />
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 so long as they do not undergo accelerations near the speed of light or enter any massive gravity wells.<ref>There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe.</ref><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. While general relativity was developed on purely theoretical grounds, it was soon discovered that it explained these precession observations.<ref>http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000</ref><ref>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node117.html</ref> Newton's theory can also explain the Mercury precession by making tiny adjustments to parameters in the gravitational equation, but doing so would give the same precession for all orbiting bodies everywhere, a phenomenon which is not observed.<br />
<br />
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 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><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
==Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity==<br />
<br />
Predictions of general relativity turn out to be obscure and difficult to test. The two most famous predictions were the bending of light in a gravitational field and the precession of the perihelia of orbiting planets.<br />
<br />
*The first of these was famously tested during a total eclipse in 1919. That test was somewhat muddled by an incorrect initial calculation, by several people including Einstein himself, of what the effect would be, and some "cherry picking" of the data to be used.<ref>''Einstein's Luck'', John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9</ref> The data selection could be considered "manipulation" or "fudging", by a person (Arthur Eddington) who had a personal stake in the outcome. His analysis techniques would not pass muster today. The announcement of this test, flawed though it was, made Einstein world-famous.<ref>[http://einstein.stanford.edu/Library/images/lightsAllAskewBig.jpg The New York Times, Nov. 10, 1919]</ref><ref>[https://www.worldbooklearning.com/how-did-an-eclipse-help-make-albert-einstein-famous/ How did an eclipse help make Albert Einstein famous]</ref><ref>[https://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post/44934715350/how-albert-einstein-became-a-celebrity How Albert Einstein became a celebrity]</ref><ref>[https://www.sciencealert.com/general-relativity-experiment-confirms-accuracy-for-galaxies "The public's mind was blown by the results, effectively turning Albert Einstein into a household name and cementing the concept of general relativity into physics books."]</ref><br />
<br />
:It should be noted that pre-relativistic (Newtonian) physics may also predict a bending, of half the observed value, depending on whether one uses the 17th century "corpuscular" formulation or the 19th century "wave" formulation.<br />
<br />
:Relying on the usual assumptions (Newtonian mechanics, Galilean relativity, conservation of energy and momentum, the universality of the speed of light (that is, special relativity), the Equivalence Principle, and the geodesic equation in empty space (that is, general relativity), and the proper calibration of the instruments, observations of later eclipses, and the observations of quasar 3C273, confirm predictions of the theory.<br />
<br />
:No [[Nobel Prize]] was was awarded for this. A few years later Einstein won the Nobel Prize for the (unrelated) [[Photoelectric effect]].<br />
<br />
*The second "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.<br />
<br />
:No Nobel Prize was was awarded for this.<br />
<br />
==Experimental and Observational Evidence Confirming Relativity==<br />
<br />
The different effects predicted by special relativity, compared to classical formulations, are extremely tiny. Most relativistic effects are negligible at the speeds of ordinary phenomena observed by humans. The effects only become significant when the speeds involved are a significant fraction of the speed of light, which is <math>3 \times 10^8</math> meters per second&mdash;such speeds are called ''relativistic''. (However, it's worth noting that ordinary magnetism can be considered an effect of relativity, dictated by the need for electrostatic theory to be correct under relativity. The speed of light in fact appears in the formulas ([[Maxwell's Equations]]) governing electricity and magnetism, though these equations were developed long before relativity was proposed.)<br />
<br />
Because the effects of relativity are so tiny, scientists have been devising sophisticated and sensitive tests ever since the theory was formulated in 1905.<br />
<br />
It is important to be aware that it is fairly rare for an experiment to '''prove''' a theory. In general, 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 a theory, it lends credence to that theory. When no other plausible theory can explain 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 was at one time another competing theory&mdash;the Newcomb-Hall exponent-fudging theory. That one didn't hold up for things other than Mercury. No other theory has come up explaining the phenomenon; GR has withstood the test of time. That goes a long way toward validating GR. There are many other observations and experiments, covering a wide variety of phenomena, described below&mdash;bending of light, gravitational time dilation, gravitational waves, geodetic precession, Shapiro effect, etc. It is these widely disparate observations, and the lack of any alternative theories explaining any of them, that lead people to say that GR is "experimentally validated".<br />
<br />
The most famous experiment, and the one that is commonly cited in textbooks as the experiment that established the case for relativity,<ref>Though relativity did not actually originate from this experiment</ref> was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]]. This showed that all observers will obtain the same measured value for the speed of light (3x10<sup>8&a