Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 18:30, May 11, 2011
, 18:30, May 11, 2011→John 4:53
::::Does this story disproves the Theory of Relativity?
::::Does this story disproves the Theory of Relativity?
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:55, 21 April 2011 (EDT)
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:55, 21 April 2011 (EDT)
==Refutations & Edits==
The following are refutations of points made in the article by user Gresavage, and is meant for article improvement. Discuss one at a time. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
#Header:Theory of relativity: A set of mathematical relations showing that mass and energy come from equivalent space curvatures that can appear differently in different observational situations. NOT "a mathematical system that allows no exception". The statement is ambiguous and false. Requires rewording Citation: http://www.ccel.us/gange.glossary.html; http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory%20of%20relativity.
#Header:"It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."|This talks about social relativism and is thereby irrelevant. Furthermore, the assertion that it is heavily promoted by liberals is not cited. You would require that there be some study showing that a tenant of liberalism is to promote the theory of relativity. Should be removed. Citation: No citation needed → irrelevant.
#Header: "any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.". Does this mean that only examples that fully falsify relativity be included? If so the list should be revised.
# Counterexample 1: This is not a counterexample of relativity and "sounds like global warming?" is pejorative speculation. it is furthermore false. gravitational waves have been indirectly detected. Should be removed. Citation: http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:147982:1/component/escidoc:147981/AdvSR-43-1049.pdf
# Counterexample 4: "If you please, Mark, try quoting the actual scientific journal instead of the New York Times. Wikipedia is also not a source. Karajou 21:31, 5 May 2011 (EDT)" if the new york times is not a source (which it is not) then neither is msnbc. Please recite!
# Counterexample 5: This is not a citation. Requires recitation
# Counterexample 5: this is not true. Citation: http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i1_en/; http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/grel.html; http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1811v1.
# Counterexample 6: This is clearly falsified by NgSmith and Toph in the talk forums. Citation: http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity#Counterexample_4_.28limiting_behavior.29
# Counterexample 7: Falsified by NgSmith. Citation http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html; http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity#Point_4
# Counterexample 8: It is common knowledge that general relativity incorporates a "flat universe". Citation: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm
# Counterexample 9: General relativity is to Quantum mechanics as Force equations without friction are to ones that consider friction. However, i can not find valid enough sources to edit this counterexample.
# Counterexample 10: (action at a distance) entirely false. Citation: http://books.google.com/books?id=mbUGZYzs878C&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=relativity+action+at+a+distance&source=bl&ots=Sp3i4fEcfB&sig=T10swXL7u39VubURAXKuY1U66_Q&hl=en&ei=y1LKTbmnKIK_gQf7k_iDBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=relativity%20action%20at%20a%20distance&f=false
#Counterexample 12: gravitons are not part of general relativity this is general knowledge. Citation: http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0322023.htm
#Counterexample 14: (W13) This is possible in general relativity. Furthermore, solely because one scientist can't explain it, does not mean it is not explainable, in fact someone did provide an explanation. Citation: http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1008/20magnetar/
#Counterexample 15: Irrelevant, even if the theory didn't lead to insights it does not detract from it's validity. However GR does have insights. Citation: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9810512; http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/people/sar049/papers/JMS_17.pdf
#Counterexample 16: This is completely irrelevant, the standard mass of the kilogram has no bearing on the validity of general relativity because it is measured from a physical object and thus subject to variance. Whereas a standard measure of a meter, second, candella and others are absolute and unchanging definitions not subject to change
#Counterexample 17: (uniform temperature) Requires better citation. (primary source)
#Counterexample 18: (space should be smooth) Requires better citation. (primary source)
#Counterexample 19: This does not falsify the theory as a whole, or even majority, rewording should be considered as well as a better source.
#Counterexample 21: Citation required as well as disambiguation. Are you implying that GR predicts that it should be possible for black holes to "congeal" into existence?
#Counterexample 22: This is full of falsehood and speculation. Citation: http://www.phys.uu.nl/~prokopec/JeroenBurgers_gw_talk2.pdf
#Counterexample 23: Neither true nor relevant, and also reiteration of a previously stated point. Whether or not you can save lives has no bearing on the validity of a theory.
#Counterexample 24: (anisotropic mass) Citation desperately needed. Anisotropic mass is understood and accepted outside of GR. Citation: http://academics.hamilton.edu/physics/smajor/StudentR/ben_f2004.pdf
#Counterexample 25: Citation needed. As well as the fact that general relativity breaks down at the quantum level. Just like newtons equations break down at the quantum level, and at the level of lets say, planets even, like for instance mercury. That does not mean it's not a valid theory for it's frame of reference. In fact it's commonly accepted that GR doesn't work at that size. (I believe) REGARDLES... CITATION NEEDED
#Counterexample 26: (conservative field) Citation needed. GR does not violate the definition of a conservative field. Where are you getting this conclusion?
#Counterexample 27: (Ehrenfest paradox) What? This does not disprove relativity. Citation: http://www.wbabin.net/physics/hynecek7.pdf
#Counterexample 28: (Twin Paradox) http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/twins.html
#Counterexample 29: The citation clearly explains how the clocks would not be off DUE to relativity, and explains the mechanism. So your point is disproved by your citation
#Counterexample 30: (Aether/higgs field) Citation Required!
#Counterexample 31: The dimension is not time, it is analogous to time though. Citation: http://www.ugr.es/local/jagalvez/pdfpapers/A18.pdf; http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Timelike.html
#Counterexample 32: Speculation and needs citation
#Counterexample 34: Simply because we can't fully solve them does not detract from it's validity. This is like saying, because ancient egyptians didn't know how to do laplace transforms, laplace transforms must be false. The inability of people to fully comprehend something does not mean it is not valid.
#Counterexample 35: Not a counterexample. Citation: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_pole_paradox.htm; http://astro.ucla.edu/~kevinhainline/relativity.html