Talk:Theory of relativity

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

For older discussions, see the archives: Archive 1, Archive 2

Jfraatz's comments

Andrew;

Relativity predicts absurd physical discontinuities

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

"and it contradicts logic,"

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

"the evidence,"

On the contrary:

Special relativity:

1. E=mc^2: nuclear power and the atomic bomb

2. Time dilation: The airplane experiments, and the time dilation of subatomic particle decay rates in a particle accelerator. 3.Mass increase: The exponential increase in energy required to get things fractionally closer to the speed of light.

General relativity:

1. Prediction of a non-static universe.

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

"and the Bible."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Johanan Raatz

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTIONS: 1.)How do you explain the phenomenon of time dilation without relativity?

2.) You said that relativity contradicts the Bible. I have heard many criticisms of relativity before but never this. Saying this is almost like saying that the theory that the sky is blue contradicts the Bible. In what way does it contradict the Bible?

3.)You compared relativity to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). One is prone to much more interpretation than relativity and has been found to be based on fraudulent data. The effects of relativity by contrast empirically confirmed every time the particle accelerator at Fermilab turns on, and it is far more simple to observe and confirm than AGW. So my question is where do you come off comparing the two?

COMMENTS: 1.)As someone who believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason. Despite your implication that relativity is a "liberal" theory I am no liberal and am therefore not so open-minded that my brains fall out. If something doesn't fit into objective a priori principles and empirical observation I have a hard time taking it seriously -I don't buy post-modernism or the idea that you can determine truth outside of objective means.

2.)Relativists in physics are not particularly liberal. My special relativity professor who happens to be the dept. specialist on relativity and quantum gravity even invited us to a talk after class one day. The topic was on the possibility of the intelligent design of the physical constants -at a secular university no less. The talk itself was to be given by a prominent physicist who also happened to specialize in relativity. You can't tell me that an extremely liberal professor would be inviting his students to talks on the possibility of intelligent design.

3.)RelativITY is NOT the same as relativISM. I also happen to have a minor in philosophy, and relativism is not based on the same premises as relativity, nor does it have anything in common with relativity. The post-modernist sorts that try to prove the latter from the former are laughed at by philosophers of both left and right-wing stripes. You needn't worry about relativity causing relativism.

4.)Gravity waves have already been confirmed by there effects on neutron star rotation. LIGO is not designed to confirm gravity waves but rather as a telescope to see the universe in a "gravitational spectrum" in the same way you would normally see it with light. This is why they are spending so much money on it and it is well worth the cost -even $1-2billion. It will revolutionize astronomy once they increase the sensitivity by another order of magnitude or so -they are very close now. If you want to slash spending, the social programs spend hundreds of times that. LIGO isn't the money sucker, welfare etc. is. Johanan Raatz

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

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

Perhaps you agree with Wikipedians, who admit that the data from the spacecraft is contrary to what is "predicted", but the Wikipedians refuse to admit that the contradicted theory is the theory of relativity![1] Maybe that omission fools some people, but it doesn't fool conservatives aware of liberal bias.--Andy Schlafly 16:28, 25 November 2009 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to Johanan Raatz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to Andrew Schlafly

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

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

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

Yes because relativistic mass has been OBSERVED for decades.

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

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

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

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

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

• 5.)Do you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 12.)"You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle.

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

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

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

Fair enough. I believe LIGO accepts donations as well.

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

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

Johanan Raatz

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

REPLY:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for References

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

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

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