Conservapedia

Changes

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)

Revision as of 07:36, January 16, 2022

18,072 bytes added ,  07:36, January 16, 2022
→‎Consider removing point #1
Line 311: Line 311:     
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19408363 BBC article]
 
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19408363 BBC article]
 +
 +
[https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211 LIGO] [[User:Mark CS|Mark CS]] ([[User talk:Mark CS|talk]]) 22:35, 20 January 2017 (EST)
    
== Lede quote ==
 
== Lede quote ==
Line 385: Line 387:  
==Inertia==
 
==Inertia==
 
Number 29 says, "Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions." Does this person mean "inertial mass"? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:41, 25 April 2013 (EDT)
 
Number 29 says, "Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions." Does this person mean "inertial mass"? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:41, 25 April 2013 (EDT)
 +
 +
:Good clarification.  Edit mad as suggested.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:13, 16 December 2014 (EST)
    
== Parodist ==
 
== Parodist ==
    
The counterexamples number [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=1003848&oldid=1002788 47, 48], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=1019735&oldid=1004457 49 and 50] were added by a parodist. Should they be removed?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 11:57, 16 December 2014 (EST)
 
The counterexamples number [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=1003848&oldid=1002788 47, 48], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=1019735&oldid=1004457 49 and 50] were added by a parodist. Should they be removed?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 11:57, 16 December 2014 (EST)
 +
 +
:Yes, those additions should be removed.  Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:10, 16 December 2014 (EST)
 +
 +
::Well, that's kind of embarrassing that such items would remain on the list for two years. And even now their removal is based not on logic, but on the identity of the contributor. Isn't it conceivable that the speed-of-light solenoid (now #46) is also parody? [[User:AlexanderS|AlexanderS]] 15:05, 4 January 2015 (EST)
 +
 +
::My apologies, the solenoid item was added by Mr. Schlafly himself. So, not parody. [[User:AlexanderS|AlexanderS]] 16:59, 4 January 2015 (EST)
 +
 +
:::Wikis are open to the public, and some people make incorrect edits, sometimes buried deep in an entry far beyond where most people would look.  The significance of such activity is zero, and eventually such little-noticed edits are reverted.  The only way to prevent such edits would be to close the wiki to the public, which would then miss out on many valuable insights from the [[best of the public]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 4 January 2015 (EST)
 +
 +
== Action-at-a-distance according to the Bible ==
 +
 +
 +
{{cquote|The [[action-at-a-distance]] by [[Jesus]], described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)#Chapter 4|John 4:46-54]], [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)#Chapter 15|Matthew 15:28]], and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)#Chapter 27|Matthew 27:51]].}}
 +
 +
That doesn't make any sense. Take e.g., John 4:46-54 - the question is: did the action take place instantaneously, or was it perhaps conveyed with the speed of light. But Cana and Capernaum are roughly  30km away from each other! Even today, we would have difficulties to make such measurements - as seen during the OPERA neutrino speed experiment of 2011.
 +
 +
How could the servants spot a difference of ca. 1/10.000 seconds? Answer: they couldn't
 +
*It's impossible to describe the breaking of a fever with such precision
 +
*Jesus said: "Go, your son lives" That takes considerably more time than 1/10.000s...
 +
*The fever left him at the seventh hour. Which one: Cana's or Capernaum's? Both differ by a couple of seconds, as all time-keeping was local!
 +
 +
Does the Bible claim that the healing was instantaneous? No, only that it took place roughly at the time Jesus spoke to the father. Jesus just tells him "Your son lives": it isn't said whether this is an observation of something which already had happened, a healing at this point of time, or a prophecy of an event in the future - all three possibilities are given (and impressive).
 +
 +
You have to twist the scripture towards your preferred interpretation if you wish to crowbar "action at a distance" into these verses. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:57, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
 +
 +
:The Gospel passages are widely understood as describing [[action-at-a-distance]].  Also, please discuss first before repeatedly deleting something.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
 +
 +
::Yes, Jesus acted over a distance - but instantaneously? That's your interpretation! If it is "widely understood" to happen instantaneously, you shouldn't have a problem to give some sources which corroborate this claim. I couldn't find any.
 +
::Furthermore: because of the technical problems which I described above, we cannot rely on eyewitnesses. Did Jesus Himself state that he has performed an [[action-at-a-distance]], i.e., caused something in a distance without temporary delay? No, He didn't.
 +
:: --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:33, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
 +
 +
"''Please discuss first before repeatedly deleting something''": I'm happy to do so and I will present my arguments. Andy, I hope you will join the discussion!
 +
:I waited more than two days for the other site to engage in a meaningful discussion. It seems that we have reached an agreement. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:26, 22 March 2015 (EDT)
 +
 +
===[[John 1-7 (Translated)#Chapter 4|John 4:46-54]]===
 +
Jesus didn't claim that the healing took place instantaneously. Andy, do you think the nobleman and his servants were able to spot whether to events took place at the same time in Cana and Capernaum? If not, this example should be removed. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:22, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
 +
 +
:The better translation is "Then the father realized that this was the same moment when Jesus said to him, "your son lives," so both he and his entire house believed."  "Same moment" means simultaneously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:47, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
 +
 +
::'''"Then ''the father'' realized"''': how could the father judge that it happened "at the same moment", and not with a delay of 1/10,000 s? Answer: He couldn't - even if his son got better five minutes before he met Jesus, and Jesus just relayed this fact, or if the healing needed five minutes, and Jesus spoke about an event in the near future! For the father (and the Roman time-keeping abilities) it was enough that it happened in the same hour!
 +
::Everybody of a certain age knows what she or he did when Kennedy was shot. But does he really know what he did in the very moment the bullet struck the president? No, at best,  he knows what he did when the transmission of the shot arrived.  --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:01, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
 +
 +
===[[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)#Chapter 15|Matthew 15:28]]===
 +
καὶ ἰάθη ἡ θυγάτηρ αὐτῆς ἀπὸ τῆς ὥρας ἐκείνης. ''and her daughter was healed from the very hour'' We don't know ''where'' the daughter was. Though the mother could have left her in Cana, she could also be accompanying her! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:22, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
 +
 +
===[[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)#Chapter 27|Matthew 27:51]]===
 +
Andy, you state: "The Greek "Καὶ ἰδού" in this context emphasizes the identical timing" - but we have a string of sentences joined by Καὶ: '''Καὶ''' ἰδοὺ τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ ἐσχίσθη ἀπ' ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω εἰς δύο, '''Καὶ''' ἡ γῆ ἐσείσθη, '''Καὶ''' αἱ πέτραι ἐσχίσθησαν, '''Καὶ''' τὰ μνημεῖα ἀνεῴχθησαν '''Καὶ''' πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμημένων ἁγίων ἠγέρθησαν, '''Καὶ''' ἐξελθόντες ἐκ τῶν μνημείων μετὰ τὴν ἔγερσιν αὐτοῦ εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν '''Καὶ''' ἐνεφανίσθησαν πολλοῖς. Obviously, not all of these events happened at the same time! And for the last four years, you haven't presented any scholarly source which would support your translation of [[idou]]! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:33, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Widely Understood ==
 +
 +
Andy, the [[GPS]] is widely understood to take relativistic effects into account - and here, I can present examples ;-) --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:49, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
 +
 +
:The GPS adjustments are based on experimental observation, not contrived theoretical predictions by Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
 +
 +
::Funny, how these experimental observations coincide with the theoretical predictions by relativity - one could see this as a confirmation of the theory.
 +
::But let's wait for [[Galileo]] - [http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Navigation/Improving_the_accuracy_of_satellite_navigation_systems they are thinking about a different approach]:
 +
:::&laquo;<i>Present navigation satellite systems, such as Galileo and GPS, employ Newtonian trigonometry to determine positions, using Earth stations as reference points. This approach would perform ideally if all the satellites and the receiver were at rest and far from Earth.</i>&raquo;
 +
 +
:::&laquo;<i>However, this is only correct as a first approximation – because of the level of precision needed by a GNSS, the distortions that Earth causes in nearby space and time (space-time curvature) and the effects of the relative motions between the satellites and the user (relativistic inertial effects) both have to be considered. These are accounted for by introducing relativistic corrections to the Newtonian theory. For a ground user, these corrections can be as large as 12 km after one day.</i>&raquo;
 +
 +
:::&laquo;<i>A simple way to avoid having to deal with the defects of Newtonian theory is to change the paradigm. Instead of modelling the system in a Newtonian framework and adding relativistic corrections, the positioning system could be modelled directly in general relativity. </i>&raquo;
 +
::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:08, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
 +
 +
:The "experimental observation" and "[contrived] theoretical predictions" happen to match.  This should surprise no one, since relativity is correct.  The GPS adjustments may be made by computers that are using observed ephemeris data from the satellites, but '''everyone involved knows''' that the '''basis''' for those adjustments (7 us/day up for SR; 45 us/day down for GR) is relativity.  No one operating the GPS control stations will tell you that "We fudge the satellite clocks by 38 microseconds per day, but we don't know why this is needed."  They knew that they would need the correction, based on relativity, before the satellites were launched; the correction mechanism was built in before launch.  Very fine "tweaking" of the clocks is made by the control stations, but that's because of uncertainty of the satellites' orbits.  The tweaking is not because relativity is wrong.  See [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html this article] for an explanation of the 38 microsecond correction.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:00, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
 +
 +
===Andy, you are missing the point of this section===
 +
The [[GPS]] is '''''widely understood''''' to take relativistic effects into account - just google ''"GPS" "theory of relativity"'' and you get numerous links to universities, etc., most of which in favor of the statement. Nonetheless, this isn't good enough  for you: predictably, you are ignoring all these voices, and just state that "''The GPS adjustments are based on experimental observation, not contrived theoretical predictions by Relativity''". I get it: ''"widely understood"'' isn't a yardstick for credibility.
 +
 +
Or is it? A little earlier, your only answer to
 +
{|class="wikitable"
 +
|
 +
{{cquote|The [[action-at-a-distance]] by [[Jesus]], described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)#Chapter 4|John 4:46-54]], [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)#Chapter 15|Matthew 15:28]], and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)#Chapter 27|Matthew 27:51]].}}
 +
 +
That doesn't make any sense. Take e.g., John 4:46-54 - the question is: did the action take place instantaneously, or was it perhaps conveyed with the speed of light. But Cana and Capernaum are roughly  30km away from each other! Even today, we would have difficulties to make such measurements - as seen during the OPERA neutrino speed experiment of 2011.
 +
 +
How could the servants spot a difference of ca. 1/10.000 seconds? Answer: they couldn't
 +
*It's impossible to describe the breaking of a fever with such precision
 +
*Jesus said: "Go, your son lives" That takes considerably more time than 1/10.000s...
 +
*The fever left him at the seventh hour. Which one: Cana's or Capernaum's? Both differ by a couple of seconds, as all time-keeping was local!
 +
 +
Does the Bible claim that the healing was instantaneous? No, only that it took place roughly at the time Jesus spoke to the father. Jesus just tells him "Your son lives": it isn't said whether this is an observation of something which already had happened, a healing at this point of time, or a prophecy of an event in the future - all three possibilities are given (and impressive).
 +
 +
You have to twist the scripture towards your preferred interpretation if you wish to crowbar "action at a distance" into these verses. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:57, 19 March 2015 (EDT)|}
 +
|}
 +
was
 +
{|class="wikitable"
 +
|The Gospel passages are widely understood as describing [[action-at-a-distance]].  Also, please discuss first before repeatedly deleting something.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
 +
|}
 +
 +
That was your whole argument! Sweet (predictable) irony! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:45, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
 +
 +
<small>BTW: if you google "action-at-a-distance" "Matthew 15:28", virtually all results are connected with Conservapedia! So, at best, this passage is widely understood only by you as describing action-at-a-distance... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:45, 8 June 2015 (EDT)</small>
 +
 +
== Relativity Conflicts with Bible ==
 +
 +
The Bible describes [[action at a distance]]. Relativity falsely denies it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:34, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
 +
 +
:Andy, on March 19, 2015 you wrote: "''please discuss first before repeatedly deleting something''". Therefore, I laid out my argument at [[#Action-at-a-distance_according_to_the_Bible]]. I waited for two days, but you didn't address my points. Thus, I thought that you had conceded this point, and I deleted it from the list.
 +
 +
:Now, I'd say it is your turn to ''discuss first before repeatedly adding something''! Merely repeating your point of view isn't a discussion! So, please address my points above. For your convenience, a short summary:
 +
::*Jesus never said that he made something happen instantaneously over a distance
 +
::*The witnesses at that time couldn't know whether something happened instantaneously or with a delay.
 +
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:39, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
 +
:BTW: take a look at [[Talk:Action at a distance#Biblical Example ]] --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:09, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
 +
 +
I don't understand the connection between this and moral relativity. Could someone please explain?
 +
:My understanding of the link is that they both simply pertain to the general notion of [[relativity]], simply put, which can be applied in a way that allows the observer to see a steep slippery slope, if one accepts the notion that all things are relative. --[[User:Hacnocteestlucet|Hacnocteestlucet]] ([[User talk:Hacnocteestlucet|talk]]) 21:04, 5 December 2015 (EST)
 +
== Einstein’s Relativity and Relativism: Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a powerful argument for absolute truth.  ==
 +
 +
Please read the article [http://evangelicalfocus.com/blogs/1297/Einsteins_Relativity_and_Relativism Einstein’s Relativity and Relativism: Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a powerful argument for absolute truth.] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:55, 11 February 2016 (EST)
 +
 +
Please unlock this page. I wish to add a picture to the article. [[User:Timematter|Timematter]] ([[User talk:Timematter|talk]]) 21:34, 4 May 2016 (EDT)
 +
 +
== The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51. ==
 +
 +
Let us make a thought experiment: imagine a glass fiber cable between Cana and Capernaum (some 90km). In Cana, the master switches on a light, in Capernaum, this is observed via cable by his servant. The servant than rides to Cana to discuss with his master whether he saw the light in the same instance it was switched on - or 1/10,000 second later.
 +
 +
What is the result when both are equipped with the best sun-dials available?
 +
 +
Hilarity!
 +
 +
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 03:54, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Consider removing point #1 ==
 +
 +
Consider removing #1, because the sources it cites (which are the National Geographic and the Scientific American) are not scientific peer-reviewed journals, and cannot be considered as actual scientific evidence. Neither of these actually cite an
 +
Also, specifically concerning the Scientific American, it does not actually state a specific computer model that has run on some computer. I had to do some digging around, but I found [https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13316 this article] which I think is what these
 +
articles are referring to. Anyway, even if this is so, this is not a valid counterexample to the Theory of Relativity because a computer model or simulation cannot necessarily falsify what is in the real world. For example, if this simulation is in ''any way'' not 100% accurate
 +
to real life, then it is not necessarily a truly accurate representation of reality. Furthermore, this could be due to the fact that according to the aforementioned article, the simulation was conducted at a limited resolution of cosmic data, and thus, does not simulate small particles
 +
such as atoms and small molecules.
 +
 +
The article itself (or rather, what is under the "Abstract" section of the article) even states: "It yields a reasonable population of ellipticals and spirals, reproduces the observed distribution of galaxies in clusters and characteristics of hydrogen on large scales, and at the same time matches the ‘metal’ and hydrogen content of galaxies on small scales."
 +
 +
This means that Chaos theory (a branch of mathematics which concerns outcomes being highly sensitive to initial conditions) could explain that due to a lack of atomic simulation of this model, it necessarily means that an exact replica of our universe is not contained within that computer simulation due to it not simulating our universe exactly how it is in the real world. Therefore, this model's density of black holes per whatever unit of measure is not sufficient evidence as a counterexample of the Theory of Relativity by Einstein because that computer simulation is not more accurate than Einstein's calculations based on Relativity.
 +
 +
Not only that, but I fail to see where it is mentioned in the article the popularity of black holes or a citation of Einstein's calculations for it as well. So the argument does not even have substantiation either.
 +
 +
==Einstein was an idiot==
 +
[https://youtu.be/Aucbv8hoEEQ?t=429 Einstein Was An Idiot]. Interesting discussion. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]]</sup> 02:36, January 16, 2022 (EST)
RobSmith
Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
294,598

edits

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:MobileDiff/1123907...1832727"