30
edits
Changes
Talk:Theory of relativity (view source)
Revision as of 23:31, December 8, 2009
, 23:31, December 8, 2009Undo revision 727915 by NgSmith (Talk)
:LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons. You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle. How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do? That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)
:LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons. You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle. How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do? That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)
== Reply to Johanan Raatz ==
== 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)
Mr. Raatz says he "believes in objective truth and the scientific method I am not open-minded beyond reason" and "I am no liberal."
*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.
:LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons. You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle. How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do? That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 27 November 2009 (EST)
Yes that's because the masses are idiots. That's not relativities fault though. It should be noted that Einstein thought that the label of "relativity" for his theory was shoddy and that he wanted a better one. Unfortunately "relativity" stuck and as a result some idiots took it the wrong way. I can not do anything about this, but it does not imply that relativity is wrong.
*11.):LIGO is set up (at an expense of hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars) to detect gravitons.
No gravity waves. Gravitons are far smaller and according to my personal model of quantum gravity do not exist as such. (well technically they "exist" in a sense, but that would be a bad way of thinking about how gravity is quantized)Gravitons are a shoddy way to describe the real phenomenon. Gravity waves are not the same as gravitons though.
*12.)"You say you're not a liberal and yet you seem to support this boondoggle.
In today's world that level of money is not a boondoggle. Social spending is a boondoggle, cap&trade is a boondoggle, and healthcare is a boondoggle, spending a little money on sciences is not a boondoggle. Look in comparison to other programs this is a pittance. It's like the liberals who complain that NASA is taking up too much money when it is only spending less than 10 bill a year compared to the 100's of billions eaten up by their social programs.
Besides I am a neoconservative and do not have exactly the same philosophy on government programs that other conservatives might. I mostly agree on opposing socialism in government programs, but that isn't the same thing as basic projects for the public good or for the advancement of science.
*13.)"How about raising donations for this from relativists, just as churches must do?"
Fair enough. I believe LIGO accepts donations as well.
*14.)That wouldn't get far, because I doubt many relativists would spend their own money on what they pretend to believe. Enough said.
Most people would like to revolutionize astronomy with the gravitational equivalent of the telescope wouldn't you agree?
[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]
P.S. if you really think I'm a liberal, look up my group MemeShock on facebook. You will see that I am most definitely not a liberal nor a leftist. Please stop making assumptions about me.
:'''REPLY''':
:1)Johanan wrote, "The same relativistic mass is not observed in the reference frame orthogonal to the motion."
::No one changed the reference frame. I said there is a force orthogonal to the high velocity that supposedly causes an increase in relativistic mass. Mass is a scalar, not a vector. Does that force have to contend with the relativistic mass as claimed? You even say that this has been observed, so the answer should be easy for you.
:3) Johanan wrote, "If the light had been traveling at different velocities as the Earth orbited the sun why then did I not see different interference patterns?"
::Michelson-Morley suggests that an ether does not exist, but it in no way proves the many claims of relativity.
: Johanan wrote, "Question you have a background in law and engineering. Do you have a background in physics?"
:: So you're going to try to plug weaknesses in your argument with a personal put-down? Not here.
: Johanan wrote, "Yes I've read the Bible."
:: Many read it in their youth. That makes the ''termination of reading the Bible'' by them all the more striking. I asked if you read the Bible (now). Once people buy into relativity, they stop reading it. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. That speaks volumes about what relativity really is.
:6) Johanan wrote, "Well are you going to tell me what this supposed contradiction is? I looked at the conservative words essay and I found "non-local" there. In the definition I found a reference to Jesus healing the sick kid from far away. If you mean to tell me that this violated relativity then you are wrong. First of all, such an action could have occurred at the speed of light and would have allowed for the kid to get better before his father returned home. Secondly Jesus being omnipotent has access to Hilbert space and therefore could operate outside of space-time."
::The healing occurred instantaneously and, yes, that contradicts the assumption in relativity about no information traveling faster than the speed of light. There are no exceptions allowed by relativity. It's a real contradiction. It's a not a "sign" as described by the Bible if it is impossible.
:7)Johanan wrote, "You clearly do not know my physics dept. then. Of all the science depts. this one has the highest number of Christians and conservatives than any of the others. In fact many of my friends (the same ones who study relativity) would read the Bible in the physics lounge. (and this was not isolated to the undergrads)
::Maybe you have 95-year-old pack-a-day cigarette smokers there too, who have never been sick a day in their lives. Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types. Keep in mind that many of the promoters of the phony man-made global warming are physics professors.
:8)Johanan wrote, "That's not what I was asking. I was asking how one theory -relativity(independent of who believes it) is comparable to another -AGW (independent of those who believe it)"
::The correlation is unmistakable. Perhaps both attract people who like to misuse science for liberal goals.
:9)Johanan wrote, "Prayer in schools is very good for the salutory effect it has on society. Read Irving Kristol."
::Do you support classroom prayer then? A clear "yes" would suffice.
:10)Johanan wrote, "... the masses are idiots. That's not relativities [sic] fault though. It should be noted that Einstein thought that the label of "relativity" for his theory was shoddy and that he wanted a better one. Unfortunately "relativity" stuck and as a result some idiots took it the wrong way. I can not do anything about this, but it does not imply that relativity is wrong."
::So ... you're fine with promoting something that is misleading the "masses" and harming their lives, as long as you can say it is their fault, not yours.
::Johanan, I spend my time helping people. Relativity has not helped a single person in any way, ever. It's misled and hurt a lot of people. Relativity is the most unproductive theory ever embraced, and it's a complete dead-end. I'm not going to waste more of my time on it, and I encourage you to open your mind and become more productive yourself.
:Johanan wrote, "P.S. if you really think I'm a liberal, look up my group MemeShock on facebook. You will see that I am most definitely not a liberal nor a leftist. Please stop making assumptions about me."
::You don't seem to be much of a conservative either. Conservatives advance society in a productive way. Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite that wastes taxpayer money, misleads well-intentioned students and pushes the masses toward relativism. Yet you're spending your time defending and promoting it. I'm moving on to more productive topics on this site, and hope you can do likewise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)
:::It's not just an issue in the States; all over the world huge amounts of government (ie taxpayers') money is being spent promoting this theory. Why would governments spend so much on something that turns people away from the Bible? I think we all know the answer to that... [[User:TrondE|TrondE]] 23:08, 27 November 2009 (EST)
::::You're asking the wrong question TrondE. The question is "Does relativity turn people away from the Bible?" If you research relativity and relativism you'll discover that relativism only latches onto to relativity for incidental reasons. Furthermore the reasons for relativism's success exist for entirely different reasons. We'd have the 60's with or without Einstein. [[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]
:::'''REPLY'''::
*Andy Wrote: "I said there is a force orthogonal to the high velocity that supposedly causes an increase in relativistic mass. Mass is a scalar, not a vector. Does that force have to contend with the relativistic mass as claimed?"
:::Yes.
:::You don't measure only one component of the velocity when you are measuring the relative velocity. You combine them with the Pythagorean theorem. So there is no change in mass when you are in a reference frame orthogonal to the moving object than when you are in a reference frame paralel to it.
*Andy Wrote: Michelson-Morley suggests that an ether does not exist, but it in no way proves the many claims of relativity.
:::Actually it's the basis for the postulate that the c is the same in all reference frames. You wrongly claimed that this was an assumption, but it is based on experimental evidence.
:::If the ether does not exist than "c" does not have a preferred reference frame to be constant in. Thus instead it is constant in all reference frames.
:::To be fair there was a third model "ballistic theory" which suggested that the photons moved at speed c with respect to their emitters, but this was ruled out by observation. It led to several optical effects that were not seen in astronomical photographs, notably in observations of binary stars in which the light from the two stars could be measured in an interferometer. If it were correct, the light from the stars should cause fringe shifting due to the velocity of the stars being added to the speed of the light, but again, no such effect could be seen. The only remaining model was the Lorentzian one.
*Andy Wrote: So you're going to try to plug weaknesses in your argument with a personal put-down? Not here.
:::No, I brought it up because you make several statements in the page which are blatantly erroneous. First of all you argue that relativity is not based on evidence but assumptions, which is simply not true as we are discussing here, then you do not seem to understand why quantum non-locality does not violate relativity, and lastly you ignore the vast experimental evidence in support of it. Most notably the massive time dilation observed in muon particles. I can only guess based on this that you don't have enough background in physics.
*Andy Wrote: "Many read it in their youth. That makes the ''termination of reading the Bible'' by them all the more striking."
Well I was just reading it earlier today and last week as well.
*Andy Wrote: "Once people buy into relativity, they stop reading it. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. That speaks volumes about what relativity really is."
:::That sounds strikingly like the "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. I don't know where you got the idea that reading relativity as opposed to any other theory caused this, but the connection you are implying is absurd and baseless. Where is your statistical evidence that tells you that people who read about relativity as opposed to say plate tectonic theory or germ theory are more likely to not read their Bible's afterwards? This suggestion that there is a connection is simply quite ridiculous.
*Andy wrote: "The healing occurred instantaneously and, yes, that contradicts the assumption in relativity about no information traveling faster than the speed of light. There are no exceptions allowed by relativity. It's a real contradiction. It's a not a "sign" as described by the Bible if it is impossible."
:::It's not a contradiction of relativity if Jesus can operate outside of space-time. Relativity does not say anything about what goes on outside of space-time. You failed to address my suggestion of this possibility though.
*Andy Wrote "Maybe you have 95-year-old pack-a-day cigarette smokers there too, who have never been sick a day in their lives. Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types. Keep in mind that many of the promoters of the phony man-made global warming are physics professors."
:::Look I don't know what personal experiences you had at Harvard, but coming from my dept. these claims are down right bizarre:
::::"Look, there's no denying that physics professors are among the most liberal group anywhere, and far more liberal than the Democratic Party as a whole. Within physics departments, the promoters of relativity are ''particularly'' liberal, more so than, for example, material science types."
:::Well I'm denying it for one. Listen, you keep spouting this off, but there is simply no basis for it. Relativists are no more liberal than quantum theorists, particle physicists, or those who study superconductors. I haven't the slightest notion where you got this idea.
*Andy Wrote: "The correlation is unmistakable. Perhaps both attract people who like to misuse science for liberal goals."
:::Andy, part of this whole discussion is WHETHER OR NOT relativity supports a liberal goal NOT IF. To say that the correlation is unmistakable because those who promote relativity are misusing science for liberal goals is begging the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy, and does not resolve anything.
*Andy Wrote: "Do you support classroom prayer then? A clear "yes" would suffice."
:::Ok YES, and FYI I was also homeschooled from 1st grade to 12th, voted for Bush in 04, write conservative editorials for my school paper nearly every week, and run the largest right-wing memetic engineering group on facebook.
*Andy Wrote: "So ... you're fine with promoting something that is misleading the "masses" and harming their lives, as long as you can say it is their fault, not yours."
:::1.)Ok look, first of all relativISM appeared for reasons entirely different than relativITY. Supporters of relativISM seized upon relativITY to lend credence to their view. However, relativism would both exist and flourish WITHOUT relativity. The relativism in today's society is not caused by relativity. Relativity is merely incidental to relativism.
:::2.) Secondly, just because something can cause people to go to a wrong conclusion does not make that thing wrong. Relativism is a wrong conclusion. Relativity in my theory is a right premise. Just because some people use a non sequiter argument to jump from one to the other does not make relativity wrong. You have to understand that relativity is true or false INDEPENDENT of whether or not it causes certain people who are ignorant of relativity to be adherents of moral relativism.
:::3.) With this in mind I will note you might consider certain scientific discoveries as what Leo Strauss would think of as "dangerous truths." There are currently several such theories that if taken the wrong way might tend one towards atheism which in turn could lead to moral relativism. As such I prefer them to be left to the scientific world and not popularized in such a way to undermine moral values, however that does not make them any less true or false. I do not personally think of relativity to be one of these, but if you do that's fine, just remember that just because something might have adverse effects to the untrained mind doesn't make it any less true or false in itself.
*Andy Wrote: "Johanan, I spend my time helping people. Relativity has not helped a single person in any way, ever. It's misled and hurt a lot of people. Relativity is the most unproductive theory ever embraced, and it's a complete dead-end."
:::That's not true. It's led (not misled) people to make great advances in astronomy, and it HAS been productive in keeping particle's alive in particle accelerators for far longer than would normally be allowed. Furthermore it is useful in keeping GPS satellites on time when they start to slip off by a few seconds every year: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html GPS recievers calculate for gravitational time dilation to keep on track. Lastly you can't tell me that this if it works will not be both very cool and very useful: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/timetravel-01a.html
*Andy Wrote: "I'm not going to waste more of my time on it, and I encourage you to open your mind and become more productive yourself."
:::Then explain muon time dilation without relativity. I'm highly skeptical that another explanation exists, but if you can find one by all means share it.
*Andy Wrote:"You don't seem to be much of a conservative either. Conservatives advance society in a productive way. Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite that wastes taxpayer money,
misleads well-intentioned students and pushes the masses toward relativism. Yet you're spending your time defending and promoting it.
:::This is circular reasoning Andy. You start with your conclusion: "Relativity is an unproductive liberal favorite" and argue back that therefore I must not be a conservative because conservatives are productive. Remember we are still debating whether or not relativity is productive. You also haven't proved why it misleads well-intentioned students. You can't argue that funding LIGO is liberal because relativity is an unproductive theory and therefore LIGO will be unproductive.
:::In a few years you might be surprised at what LIGO will do. I for one would love a new way to map dark matter. It would be a very nice way to figure out if I am on the right track with my quantum gravity theory for one thing.
*Andy Wrote: "I'm moving on to more productive topics on this site, and hope you can do likewise."
:::Don't worry, I intend to put together and edit many political pages that I think you will like! ;)
[[user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]
==Request for References==
==Request for References==