Difference between revisions of "Counterexamples to Relativity"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (punctuation)
 
(490 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
Back when I first started my blog, I spent a lot more time dealing with crazy people who are convinced that Einstein’s theories of relativity are wrong (see here, here and here).  More recently, I haven’t spent a lot of time on the crazy train, but I have been meaning to get back to my long-neglected series of posts explaining relativity.
+
<!--
 +
              CAVEAT EDITOR!!
  
−
Enter Conservapedia, the right-wing version of Wikipedia intended to combat the liberal bias in reality!  Over the past day, Twitter has been abuzz with tweets¹ on the Conservapedia page on “Counterexamples to relativity“, provides a list of 24 “points” that attempt to show the weakness of Einstein’s crazy ideas!
+
    To maintain the numbering, you must put a sharp sign
 +
    followed by one or more colons (#:) at the start of every line
 +
    that is not intended to start a new number.
 +
    A sharp sign by itself starts a new numbered section.
  
−
In my mind, perhaps the most despicable sort of denialism or crankery, however, is that which is based on some sort of political or religious ideology.  This is clearly what is going on here, and the author relies on a familiar form of rhetorical trickery known as the “Gish Gallop“: throw as many claims out there as possible, regardless of their validity, with the realization that most people will be swayed by the amount of “evidence”, and not look too closely at the details.
+
    Also, there must be no blank lines.  If you want a blank line,
 +
    create a line with just a sharp sign and colon.
  
−
Looking at the “evidence”, it is clear that there isn’t a single point made that isn’t misleading, incoherent, or simply dishonest.  A person reading the Conservapedia post will be measurably more ignorant afterwards, and I get the distinct impression that this is what the author intended.
+
-->
 +
The [[theory of relativity]] is disproved by numerous counterexamples, but is promoted by [[liberals]], who like its encouragement of [[moral relativism|relativism]] and its tendency to pull people away from the [[Bible]].<ref group="note"> ''See, e.g.'', historian Paul Johnson's book, ''Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties'' (Harpercollins, 1983), 1st U.S. ed., ch. 1: "A Relativistic World."  See also Tribe, Laurence H. (November 1989). "The curvature of constitutional space: what lawyers can learn from modern physics." ''Harvard Law Review'' (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), vol. 103, no. 1 (thanking [[Barack Obama]], who was a first-year law student when this absurd law review article was written, for his supposed "analytic and research assistance").</ref> Here is a list of 52 counterexamples: any one of them would prove that relativity is a [[politically correct]] falsehood:
 +
#The '''''acceleration''''' in the expansion of the [[universe]] disproves relativity, and never-seen "[[dark energy]]" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory; data released in April 2019 shows that the universe is expanding more rapidly than the theory allows.<ref>https://www.livescience.com/65332-hubble-wrong-speed.html</ref>
 +
#If space were curved as the [[theory of relativity]] asserts, one would never expect the universe as a whole to be virtually '''''precisely flat''''', but it is. "Somewhat surprisingly, current observational data favours the delicately balanced flat over both the open and closed models."<ref>https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/f/Friedmann-Lemaitre+Universe</ref>
 +
#The [[Pioneer anomaly|''Pioneer'' anomaly]]: ''NASA'''s Pioneer 10 & 11 spacecraft slowed as they exited the [[solar system]], which is the opposite of expectations; [[atheistic science]] eventually invented unpersuasive explanations.
 +
#The [[Sun]] is a '''''perfect''''' sphere - "the solar flattening is ... too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation."<ref>http://www.tgdaily.com/space-features/65491-why-is-the-sun-so-round</ref>
 +
#Computer simulations based on the theory of relativity '''''predict far more''''' [[black holes]] than are observed.<ref group="note">"The ratio of the mass of black holes in galaxy centers to the rest of the matter in galaxies is larger in the simulations than in the real universe." Emspak, Jesse (November 28, 2012). [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=biggest-black-hole-blast-ever "Biggest black hole blast ever could solve cosmological mystery."] ''Space.com'' website.  Reprinted at ''Scientific American'' website.</ref> Indeed, it is doubtful whether black holes even exist, and at least one observation disproved the prediction.<ref>Lemonick, Michael D. (November 6, 2014). [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/11/141106-space-g2-black-hole-science/?google_editors_picks=true "Black hole fails to destroy mystery cosmic cloud."] ''National Geographic'' website.</ref>
 +
#"[[Quasar]]s are disappearing" contrary to the [[theory of relativity]], and astronomers simply "stopped looking" after finding more than ten examples of rapidly changing quasars that confound the theory with respect to black holes.<ref>Templeton, Graham (November 30, 2015). [http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/218636-quasars-are-disappearing-and-astronomers-arent-sure-why "Quasars are disappearing and astronomers aren't sure why."] ''ExtremeTech'' website.</ref>
 +
#The [[orbital eccentricity]] of the [[Moon]]'s orbit is increasing, contrary to what relativity predicts.<ref>https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212</ref>
 +
#[[Quantum entanglement]] near the [[event horizon]] of a [[black hole]]—with one particle of the pair on one side, and the other particle of the pair on the other side—defies the theory of relativity.<ref>https://simonsfoundation.org/features/science-news/mathematics-and-physical-science/alice-and-bob-meet-the-wall-of-fire/</ref> Relativity is a mathematical theory that cannot permit any exceptions, just as arithmetic falls apart if 2 times 2 is ever not equal to 4.  See also [[black hole firewall]]. [[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|
 +
"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). [https://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>]]
 +
#The speed of light in a vacuum is slower than expected—less than ''c''—based on new data from a 25-year-old [[supernova]].<ref>[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184879-einsteinian-error-the-25-year-old-supernova-that-could-change-the-speed-of-light-forever Einsteinian error: The 25-year-old supernova that could change the speed of light forever]</ref>
 +
#"Celestial signals defy [[Albert Einstein]]. Strange signals picked up from black holes and distant supernovae suggest there's more to space-time than Einstein believed."<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129500.700-breaking-relativity-celestial-signals-defy-einstein.html ''New Scientist'' (Jan. 2, 2014)]</ref>
 +
#A physics article published in 2014 states that "general relativity, which describes gravity at low energies precisely, break[s] down at high energies."<ref>https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.3720</ref>
 +
#Subatomic particles with mass have a speed observed to be as fast as the speed of light ("we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of [[neutrinos]]"<ref>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682</ref>), which contradicts relativity because the [[Lorentz factor]] is then infinite.<ref>http://www.hindustantimes.com/Roll-over-Einstein-Law-of-physics-challenged/Article1-749189.aspx - note that a similar observation of faster-than-light speeds was also made in 2007 (with a larger margin of error).</ref> ref>https://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/18/us-science-neutrinos-light-idUSTRE7AH0T720111118</ref> Neutrinos were observed to travel at the speed of light by an independent experiment also: "Their neutrinos traveled at precisely the speed of light, not faster or slower."<ref>http://junkscience.com/2012/03/21/no-you-still-cant-go-faster-than-light/</ref>
 +
#Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by [[Earth]] ("flybys"). During the gravity assists from Earth, both the ''Galileo'' spacecraft and the ''Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous'' (''NEAR'') spacecraft experienced a change in velocity different than that predicted by General Relativity.<ref>http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19088/1/98-0296.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23410705/</ref>
 +
#[[Spiral galaxies]] confound relativity, and unseen, nonexistent "[[dark matter]]" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.<ref>https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1873</ref> "Dark matter mysteriously missing around sun.  Theories say neighborhood should be filled with it, but new study shows otherwise."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47101905</ref>
 +
#Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the [[perihelion]] of [[Mercury]] show a shift greater than predicted by relativity, well beyond the margin of error.<ref group="note">Even [[liberal]] Wikipedia, which promotes relativity, admits that relativity's total predicted precession of Mercury's perihelion is 575.31, while the observed data is contrary to the prediction: 574.10±0.65. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury]  Also, in a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01), and leading promoters of relativity (such as Professor Clifford Will) have omitted this in listing tests confirming relativity.</ref>
 +
#Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravitational waves predicted by the theory, no direct observation of [[gravity]] [[wave]]s has occurred.<ref>https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3781</ref> ''Sound like [[global warming]]?'' Then, in classic [[liberal claptrap]], the liberal media claimed that gravitational waves were discovered when, in fact, no such direct observation was made.
 +
#The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.
 +
#[[Atheistic science]] admits that "observations don't match predictions, because the objects farthest from each other in the known universe are so far apart that the time it would take to travel between them at the speed of light exceeds the age of the universe," and implausible theories are created to try to explain it.<ref>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100409-black-holes-alternate-universe-multiverse-einstein-wormholes/</ref>
 +
#The logical problem of a force that is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?
 +
#The universe shortly after its creation, when [[Quantum mechanics|quantum]] effects dominated and contradicted relativity.
 +
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] of [[quantum entanglement]].<ref group="note">Quantum entanglement has not yet communicated information faster than the speed of light, but has already exhibited action faster than the speed of light.</ref>
 +
#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]].
 +
#The failure to discover [[gravitons]], despite spending hundreds of millions in taxpayer money on the search. While these tax dollars were not necessarily "wasted", the lack of results indicates that scientists need to revisit their hypothesis.
 +
#Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do '''not''' experience identical laws of physics as claimed by relativity.<ref group="note">For a report on the data, see a paper submitted in 2010 by John Webb and Julian King of the University of New South Wales, Australia, to the ''Physical Review Letters''.</ref>
 +
#The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a [[black hole]].  So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."<ref>https://www.economist.com/node/17035953</ref>
 +
#The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
 +
#The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.<ref>[[Mystery:Why Is the Kilogram Losing Weight?]]</ref>
 +
#The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html ("A varying speed of light contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity, and would undermine much of traditional physics. But some physicists believe it would elegantly explain puzzling cosmological phenomena such as the nearly uniform temperature of the universe.")</ref>
 +
#"According to Einstein’s view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous," but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.<ref>[https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out. Hunt for gravitational waves discovers unexpected data instead].</ref>
 +
#"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel."<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space</ref>
 +
#The theory predicts [[wormholes]] just as it predicts [[black holes]], but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.<ref>http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/i13/p1446_1 .  The popular science press promotes black holes to a far greater extent than wormholes.</ref>
 +
#The theory predicts the natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in [[entropy]] required by the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]].<ref group="note">Contrived explanations have been suggested for this dilemma, such as Stephen Hawking proposing that the entropy of matter in a black hole is somehow stored in the surface area of its event horizon to be released back into its surroundings as the black hole decays by radiation, known as "Hawking radiation."</ref>
 +
#Data from the [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] increasingly diverge from predictions of the [[General Theory of Relativity]] such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.
 +
#The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.<ref group="note">Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on relativity.  The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "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" in part because "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> This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.
 +
#Relativity requires different values for the [[inertia]] mass 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.
 +
#Relativity requires that anything traveling at the [[speed of light]] must have mass zero, so it must have [[momentum]] zero. But the laws of [[electrodynamics]] require that light have nonzero momentum.
 +
#Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.<ref group="note">In defense of the theory, it is noted that it mandates conservation of the matter-stress-energy tensor (the only way to get ''real'' conservation, since matter and energy are interchangeable.)  This follows from the "contracted Bianchi identity." [http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap6/node14.html]  Also, the curl of the "gravitational field vector" is exactly zero in the absence of moving sources, due to symmetries of [[Riemann]]'s tensor.  It follows, from [[Stokes' Theorem]], that the gravitational field is conservative and has a potential function.  Energy is conserved.</ref>
 +
#The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the [[tangent]]ial [[velocity]] is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (<math>2 \pi R</math>) is length-contracted. However, since <math>R</math> is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal <math>R</math>, or is it less than <math>R</math>?
 +
#Based on relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5255/abs/227270a0.html</ref>
 +
#The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates relativity because ''both'' twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts relativity.<ref group="note">Einstein attempted to explain the paradox based on the acceleration that one twin uniquely undergoes, but the length of travel can simply be extended such that any effect from acceleration would be ''de minimis''.</ref>
 +
#Based on relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the [[aether (science)|aether]] does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.
 +
#[[Minkowski space]] is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is [[time]]. However, one of the properties of a [[vector space]] is that every vector has an inverse. Time (formally: movement forward in time) cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.
 +
#In [[Genesis (ch.1)|Genesis 1:6-8]], we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous [[aether]].
 +
#It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].
 +
#Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."<ref>[http://www.mathunion.org/o/General/Prizes/2006/TaoENG.pdf Statement in awarding the coveted Fields Medal]</ref>
 +
#Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict relativity: "Einstein’s Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."<ref>http://www.wbabin.net/weuro/qingping1.pdf</ref><ref>https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504223</ref>
 +
#Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light.<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279</ref>
 +
#The [[Pauli Exclusion principle]] states that no two electrons in a closed system can exist in the same quantum state, and if one electron changes, all others must compensate. As the universe is a closed system, when one electron changes state, so must all others, even if they are thousands of light years apart.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2012/feb/28/1.</ref>
 +
#The 2014 findings of gravitational waves are actually just dust.<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26248-ripples-from-dawn-of-creation-vanish-in-a-puff-of-dust.html</ref>
 +
#The theory of relativity violates [[Occam's razor]] by requiring multiple new, implausible assumptions, including an invariant speed of light, denial of [[action at a distance]], denial of basic, well-proven principles of [[quantum mechanics]], and insistence that all places in the universe be equivalent to each other.
 +
#The theory of relativity has discontinuities whereby the limit of a physical quantity as a variable (such as mass or velocity) approaches a fixed value, but it is not the same as the physical quantity at that 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.
 +
#Discontinuities in General Relativity are well-recognized.<ref>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01654285</ref>
  
−
But never fear, dear reader!  I’m here to go through the list of some of the most entertaining assertions, and explain why they’re nonsense. Why bother, you ask?  For one thing, entertainment. For another, there’s always a chance that someone may come across the Conservapedia entry and look for some sort of counterbalance… someone should write one!
+
''For a discussion of rebuttals to these counterarguments, see [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].''
  
−
One caveat: I can’t guarantee that the list I present will match the list on the Conservapedia page.  I saved the tweeted list, but after all the internet attention, it was reduced to four points.  Soon afterwards,  it reverted to the original list again.  There’s no guarantee that it will remain in its current form, though…
+
== See also ==
 +
*[[Theory of relativity]]
 +
*[[General Theory of Relativity]]
 +
*[[Special Theory of Relativity]]
 +
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]
 +
*[[E=mc²]]
 +
*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]
 +
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]
  
−
Let’s start with a few observations about Einstein’s relativity, which may be broken into the special theory of relativity, published in 1905, and the general theory, published in 1915.
+
*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
 +
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
 +
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]
  
−
The special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: 1) the laws of physics are the same for all observers moving at constant speed, and 2) the speed of light is the same for all observers.  The first point is the crux of “relativity”: there is no such thing as “absolute” motion of an object, and the laws of physics have the same form for any observer moving at constant velocity.  This statement goes back as far as Galileo, who realized that a person sitting within the depths of a moving ship has no local means of telling that they are in fact moving.  The second point is the one that results in all the crazy, counterintuitive notions.  In order for all observers, regardless of their motion, to agree on the value of the speed of light, traditional notions of space and time must be modified, and in fact we must consider space and time as interrelated entities.  From my point of view, a moving observers has clocks which run slow, while that observer will say that my clocks are running slow.  Built into the constancy of the speed of light is the fact that the speed of light is the “speed limit” of the universe, and nothing can be moved faster than that speed… with certain cosmological caveats.
+
== Notes ==
 +
<references group="note"/>
 +
== References ==
  
−
The general theory of relativity adds gravity to the mixture.  The fundamental idea is that, locally, a gravitational force is indistinguishable from accelerated motion in the opposite direction.  The simple illustration of this is being in an elevator — when the elevator is accelerating up, you feel heavier.  When the elevator is accelerating down, you feel lighter.  From the theory of general relativity follows all sorts of weird stuff such as black holes and the possibility of wormholes.  In general relativity, matter is viewed as fundamentally distorting the shape of space and time.
+
{{Reflist}}
 +
{{Counterexamples}}
 +
{{Relativity}}
  
−
With that in mind, let’s get to the list, but start with the introduction to it (I’m leaving out the hyperlinks and citations, but will refer to them when appropriate):
+
[[Category:Relativity]]
−
 
+
[[Category:Physics]]
−
    The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world. Here is a list of 24 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.
+
[[Category:Science]]
−
 
 
−
The first sentence makes no sense!  It is not just a “mathematical system”, it is a physical theory that has been tested countless times and is used by experimental physicists on a daily basis.  I have a book in my office that is all about the analysis of the different experimental tests specifically of special relativity.  It is not clear what “allows no exceptions” means; physics is all about looking for “exceptions” to existing physical law, and relativity is not necessarily immune to this.  The basic tenets of both the special and general theories have been well established, however, and any new discoveries are expected to build upon them, not refute them.
 
−
 
 
−
I hate to go all Godwin early in this post, but replace “liberals” by “Jews” in the second sentence, and the sentence might as well have been written by a Nazi circa 1930s-era Germany.  Nazi scientists specifically rejected Einstein’s theory of relativity as “Jewish science”, and they founded their own theory of physics referred to as Deutsche Physik.  The result of their ideological and racist hubris was to cripple Germany as a scientific giant for decades.  For a good discussion of the poisonous effects of ideology on science, read John Grant’s awesome book, Corrupted Science.
 
−
 
 
−
The third sentence is also absurd: as I’ve said, the theories of relativity have been experimentally tested for decades, and have survived all tests.  Even if a discrepancy between theory and experiment is found, it does not invalidate the entire theoretical framework, but builds upon it.  Einstein’s theory of relativity built upon Newton’s earlier theory of relativity — Newton’s theory was not shown to be wrong, but rather incomplete.  Assuming that a new piece of evidence somehow invalidates a century of observations shows a complete lack of understanding of science and how it works.
 
−
 
 
−
Let’s get to the list:
 
−
 
 
−
    1.  The Pioneer anomaly.
 
−
 
 
−
Humankind has launched a number of unmanned spacecraft that are on course to leave the solar system.  These craft, such as Pioneer 10 and 11, are continually slowing down under the influence of the Sun’s gravity, but observations in recent years suggest that they are slowing down slightly more than expected.  A number of explanations have been proposed to explain this effect, including observational errors and previously unobserved gravitational effects.  There is a small possibility of new physics — we have relatively few direct measurements of the effects of gravity over long distances and at slow speeds, and it has been suggested that the familiar Newtonian laws of gravity may be slightly different at large scales.
 
−
 
 
−
Notice that I didn’t mention relativity in that paragraph?  Though any new physics could potentially involve changes to relativity, the Pioneer anomaly doesn’t directly relate to relativity, and there’s no reason to say that this small effect in any way invalidates the long established theory.
 
−
 
 
−
    2.  Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth (“flybys”).
 
−
 
 
−
This is really in essence a repeat of point #1!  In 1990, it was observed that the Galileo spacecraft, passing close to the Earth, experienced an unexplained change in speed as it went by.  Similar observations have been made of other spacecraft.  These anomalies are quite exciting for science, as they do offer the potential for new physics.  However, they don’t threaten to do anything to relativity other than perhaps modify it.
 
−
 
 
−
    3.  Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by relativity, well beyond the margin of error.
 
−
 
 
−
The first success of Einstein’s general relativity was providing an explanation for a previously-unexplained slow evolution in the motion of planet Mercury.  No reference is provided on Conservapedia for these so-called shifts “well beyond the margin of error”, but even if they do exist they will likely involve a correction of existing theory, and do not invalidate relativity.
 
−
 
 
−
    4.  The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches “c” for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.
 
−
 
 
−
Completely nonsensical.  Special relativity results in expressions for the momentum of massive particles, which approaches infinity as the speed of the particle approaches the speed of light.  It does not, however, provide an expression for the momentum of massless particles, only a “loophole” that suggests that massless particles with momentum are possible.  The momentum of light comes from Maxwell’s equations, and the momentum of photons (light particles) is associated with quantum mechanics.
 
−
 
 
−
    5.  The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass – does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?
 
−
 
 
−
I’ve never heard of this being a problem for anyone studying relativity.  In classical, pre-relativity Newtonian physics, momentum is directly proportional to velocity, while in Einstein’s relativity, the momentum of a particle approaches infinity as the speed of the particle approaches the speed of light.  There are two ways to interpret the new momentum formula: you can keep Newton’s formula and interpret mass as increasing, or you can just accept that Newton’s formula doesn’t hold for really fast objects.  The idea of relativistic mass is hardly ever taught these days, because it leads to pointless confusion as given in point 5 above.
 
−
 
 
−
    6.  The observed lack of curvature in overall space.
 
−
 
 
−
Another point without external reference!  As I noted, general relativity supposes that mass creates a curvature of the fabric of space and time itself, with a greater distortion associated with greater mass.  In a footnote, the author argues that space is “almost flat”, but doesn’t say how they reach that conclusion, or how that point disproves relativity.
 
−
 
 
−
    7.  The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.
 
−
 
 
−
Why is this a counterexample to relativity, and why do quantum effects “contradict” relativity?  The author doesn’t say, and clearly doesn’t know.
 
−
 
 
−
    8.  The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.
 
−
 
 
−
“Quantum entanglement” refers to the idea that two quantum mechanical particles can in principle have a “connection” even after being separated by great distances.  A measurement of one entangled particle supposedly must “instantaneously” influence the behavior of the second particle, seemingly at odds with special relativity.  In fact, Einstein himself used this to argue against the idea of quantum mechanics, referring to this effect as “spooky action at a distance“.  A more sophisticated analysis, and experimental tests, however, have shown that it is impossible to use this “spooky action” to convey information at a speed faster than that of light.  Entanglement has in fact broadened our understanding of quantum mechanics and relativity, and not discounted either.  There is still some subtlety to the story of entanglement, and investigations are still underway, but the author of this post clearly understands none of it.
 
−
 
 
−
    9.  The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54.
 
−
 
 
−
Seriously?  You’re kidding, right?  Okay, let me explain something about science to this sad Conservapedia author: Bible quotes are not scientific evidence.  Now let me explain some theology to this author: pretty much by definition, a miracle is an act that goes against the laws of nature.  If you think that Jesus’ acts disprove relativity, you’re saying that Jesus wasn’t performing miracles at all.  Idiot.
 
−
 
 
−
    10.  The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
 
−
 
 
−
Luv the conservative whine about taxes, dude!  The problem is: the graviton isn’t a part of relativity.  A graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that is the origin of the gravitational force, just as the photon is the origin of the electromagnetic forces.  It is not a part of special or general relativity, however, and was introduced as a way to try and explain gravity in a similar manner to other fundamental forces such as the strong and weak nuclear forces.  The validity of general relativity does not depend on the graviton’s existence.
 
−
 
 
−
    11.  The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
 
−
 
 
−
If you neglect all of cosmology and astronomy, I guess you could say that relativity provides no insights.  That would be a pretty big neglect, however.
 
−
 
 
−
    12.  The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.
 
−
 
 
−
Finally — an external link!  Unfortunately, said link demonstrates that the point in question is irrelevant.  Unlike all other fundamental metric units, the kilogram is not defined by some sort of physical phenomena but by a block of platinum and iridium kept in Paris.  In recent years, it has been found that this lump of metal is losing mass, or that copies are gaining mass.  What does this have to do with relativity?  Nothing.
 
−
 
 
−
    14.  “The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel.”
 
−
 
 
−
Ah, now we have an out of context quote from Scientific American!  It has been a long-standing problem in physics to try and combine quantum mechanics and relativity.  The Scientific American article describes one hypothesis for modifying gravity to incorporate quantum effects.  The quotation in question describes a problem that physicists are trying to overcome, not an experimental problem with relativity.  Quote fail.
 
−
 
 
−
    15. The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.
 
−
 
 
−
Scott Adams of Dilbert fame once compiled a really killer list of logical fallacies relating to science, including the fallacy, “Incompleteness as proof of defect.”  That is, pretend a theory is wrong because it can’t explain every problem anyone has ever proposed!  Nobody pretends that general relativity is complete; it does, however, explain cosmological observations really well.
 
−
 
 
−
    18. The lack of a single useful device developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science. The only device based on relativity is the atom bomb, but that has destroyed far more lives than it’s saved so it can hardly be considered useful.
 
−
 
 
−
The second part of this point is just a repeat of point 11!  The first part is somehow an argument conflating the “accuracy” of a scientific theory with its “usefulness”, though the two are not equivalent.  A theory must be accurate to be useful, but an accurate theory does not necessarily have direct uses.  Reality is reality, regardless of its usefulness.  However, it should be noted that all of high-energy physics, including the operation of particle accelerators, depends on the results of special relativity to function — particles are accelerated to speeds that are within a fraction of a percent of the speed of light.  The third part of this statement is again a statement of usefulness, which is utterly irrelevant to the accuracy of the theory.
 
−
 
 
−
    19.  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.
 
−
 
 
−
Nonsense.  The term “inertia” itself is usually described as an object’s “resistance to a change in motion”; in Newtonian physics, this is typically equated with mass.  In special relativity, however, the effect of forces on an object are typically described in terms of the object’s momentum, and there is no problem of “different values”.  This is, in fact, an undergraduate-level calculation.
 
−
 
 
−
    20.  Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.
 
−
 
 
−
*BUZZZZ!!!!*  Wrong answer!  The problem is the statement, “so it must have momentum zero.”  As noted in point 4, special relativity actually suggests the opposite — a massless particle traveling at the speed of light has a momentum undefined by relativity, providing a “loophole” that allows the particle to have nonzero momentum.
 
−
 
 
−
    23.  The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his “clock” (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.
 
−
 
 
−
*BUZZZZ!!!!* Wrong answer, again!  The “twin paradox” hasn’t been a paradox of relativity theory for pretty much 100 years.  The statement of the problem is roughly correct, if oversimplified — as noted in the introduction, observers in uniform motion relative to one another both, correctly, observe each other’s clocks as running slow.  The key, though, is the word “uniform”: in the twin paradox, in order for the two twins to end at the same place, one of them must have accelerated — undergone non-uniform motion — in order to return home.  Counter to footnote 13, this acceleration can never be “neglected” — a weaker acceleration must be applied over a longer period of time in order to send the twin home.  The calculation and resolution of the twin paradox is not that difficult to do, actually, and I will return to it in my future relativity posts.
 
−
 
 
−
*****************
 
−
 
 
−
So, where do we stand?  Other than a few points I got too tired to explain (the power of the Gish Gallop), everything we’ve seen has been deceptive, incorrect — or just plain crazy.
 
−
 
 
−
Really, to assume that relativity is a liberal conspiracy requires one to believe that physicists for over one hundred years have been conspiring to hide the “truth” from the people, and that none of them have ever stepped forward to reveal said conspiracy!  If you believe that, you’re probably hiding in your mother’s basement, wearing a tinfoil hat and living on a diet of grade school paste.
 
−
 
 
−
*****************
 
−
 
 
−
¹ I have to credit Sarah at The Language of Bad Physics for pointing me to the link.
 

Latest revision as of 19:47, October 6, 2026

The theory of relativity is disproved by numerous counterexamples, but is promoted by liberals, who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to pull people away from the Bible.[note 1] Here is a list of 52 counterexamples: any one of them would prove that relativity is a politically correct falsehood:

  1. The acceleration in the expansion of the universe disproves relativity, and never-seen "dark energy" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory; data released in April 2019 shows that the universe is expanding more rapidly than the theory allows.[1]
  2. If space were curved as the theory of relativity asserts, one would never expect the universe as a whole to be virtually precisely flat, but it is. "Somewhat surprisingly, current observational data favours the delicately balanced flat over both the open and closed models."[2]
  3. The Pioneer anomaly: NASA's Pioneer 10 & 11 spacecraft slowed as they exited the solar system, which is the opposite of expectations; atheistic science eventually invented unpersuasive explanations.
  4. The Sun is a perfect sphere - "the solar flattening is ... too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation."[3]
  5. Computer simulations based on the theory of relativity predict far more black holes than are observed.[note 2] Indeed, it is doubtful whether black holes even exist, and at least one observation disproved the prediction.[4]
  6. "Quasars are disappearing" contrary to the theory of relativity, and astronomers simply "stopped looking" after finding more than ten examples of rapidly changing quasars that confound the theory with respect to black holes.[5]
  7. The orbital eccentricity of the Moon's orbit is increasing, contrary to what relativity predicts.[6]
  8. Quantum entanglement near the event horizon of a black hole—with one particle of the pair on one side, and the other particle of the pair on the other side—defies the theory of relativity.[7] Relativity is a mathematical theory that cannot permit any exceptions, just as arithmetic falls apart if 2 times 2 is ever not equal to 4. See also black hole firewall.
    "I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional 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[8]
  9. The speed of light in a vacuum is slower than expected—less than c—based on new data from a 25-year-old supernova.[9]
  10. "Celestial signals defy Albert Einstein. Strange signals picked up from black holes and distant supernovae suggest there's more to space-time than Einstein believed."[10]
  11. A physics article published in 2014 states that "general relativity, which describes gravity at low energies precisely, break[s] down at high energies."[11]
  12. Subatomic particles with mass have a speed observed to be as fast as the speed of light ("we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos"[12]), which contradicts relativity because the Lorentz factor is then infinite.[13] ref>https://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/18/us-science-neutrinos-light-idUSTRE7AH0T720111118</ref> Neutrinos were observed to travel at the speed of light by an independent experiment also: "Their neutrinos traveled at precisely the speed of light, not faster or slower."[14]
  13. Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys"). During the gravity assists from Earth, both the Galileo spacecraft and the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) spacecraft experienced a change in velocity different than that predicted by General Relativity.[15][16]
  14. Spiral galaxies confound relativity, and unseen, nonexistent "dark matter" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.[17] "Dark matter mysteriously missing around sun. Theories say neighborhood should be filled with it, but new study shows otherwise."[18]
  15. Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by relativity, well beyond the margin of error.[note 3]
  16. Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravitational waves predicted by the theory, no direct observation of gravity waves has occurred.[19] Sound like global warming? Then, in classic liberal claptrap, the liberal media claimed that gravitational waves were discovered when, in fact, no such direct observation was made.
  17. The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.
  18. Atheistic science admits that "observations don't match predictions, because the objects farthest from each other in the known universe are so far apart that the time it would take to travel between them at the speed of light exceeds the age of the universe," and implausible theories are created to try to explain it.[20]
  19. The logical problem of a force that is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?
  20. The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted relativity.
  21. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.[note 4]
  22. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.
  23. The failure to discover gravitons, despite spending hundreds of millions in taxpayer money on the search. While these tax dollars were not necessarily "wasted", the lack of results indicates that scientists need to revisit their hypothesis.
  24. Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do not experience identical laws of physics as claimed by relativity.[note 5]
  25. The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a black hole. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."[21]
  26. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
  27. The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.[22]
  28. The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.[23]
  29. "According to Einstein’s view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous," but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.[24]
  30. "The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel."[25]
  31. The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.[26]
  32. The theory predicts the natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.[note 6]
  33. Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.
  34. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.[note 7] This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.
  35. Relativity requires different values for the inertia mass 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.
  36. Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.
  37. Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.[note 8]
  38. The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (<math>2 \pi R</math>) is length-contracted. However, since <math>R</math> is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal <math>R</math>, or is it less than <math>R</math>?
  39. Based on relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.[27]
  40. The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts relativity.[note 9]
  41. Based on relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.
  42. Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector has an inverse. Time (formally: movement forward in time) cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.
  43. In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.
  44. It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of faith.
  45. Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."[28]
  46. Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict relativity: "Einstein’s Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."[29][30]
  47. Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.[31]
  48. The Pauli Exclusion principle states that no two electrons in a closed system can exist in the same quantum state, and if one electron changes, all others must compensate. As the universe is a closed system, when one electron changes state, so must all others, even if they are thousands of light years apart.[32]
  49. The 2014 findings of gravitational waves are actually just dust.[33]
  50. The theory of relativity violates Occam's razor by requiring multiple new, implausible assumptions, including an invariant speed of light, denial of action at a distance, denial of basic, well-proven principles of quantum mechanics, and insistence that all places in the universe be equivalent to each other.
  51. The theory of relativity has discontinuities whereby the limit of a physical quantity as a variable (such as mass or velocity) approaches a fixed value, but it is not the same as the physical quantity at that 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.
  52. Discontinuities in General Relativity are well-recognized.[34]

For a discussion of rebuttals to these counterarguments, see Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity.

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson's book, Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties (Harpercollins, 1983), 1st U.S. ed., ch. 1: "A Relativistic World." See also Tribe, Laurence H. (November 1989). "The curvature of constitutional space: what lawyers can learn from modern physics." Harvard Law Review (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), vol. 103, no. 1 (thanking Barack Obama, who was a first-year law student when this absurd law review article was written, for his supposed "analytic and research assistance").
  2. ↑ "The ratio of the mass of black holes in galaxy centers to the rest of the matter in galaxies is larger in the simulations than in the real universe." Emspak, Jesse (November 28, 2012). "Biggest black hole blast ever could solve cosmological mystery." Space.com website. Reprinted at Scientific American website.
  3. ↑ Even liberal Wikipedia, which promotes relativity, admits that relativity's total predicted precession of Mercury's perihelion is 575.31, while the observed data is contrary to the prediction: 574.10±0.65. [1] Also, in a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01), and leading promoters of relativity (such as Professor Clifford Will) have omitted this in listing tests confirming relativity.
  4. ↑ Quantum entanglement has not yet communicated information faster than the speed of light, but has already exhibited action faster than the speed of light.
  5. ↑ For a report on the data, see a paper submitted in 2010 by John Webb and Julian King of the University of New South Wales, Australia, to the Physical Review Letters.
  6. ↑ Contrived explanations have been suggested for this dilemma, such as Stephen Hawking proposing that the entropy of matter in a black hole is somehow stored in the surface area of its event horizon to be released back into its surroundings as the black hole decays by radiation, known as "Hawking radiation."
  7. ↑ Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "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" in part because "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.”
  8. ↑ In defense of the theory, it is noted that it mandates conservation of the matter-stress-energy tensor (the only way to get real conservation, since matter and energy are interchangeable.) This follows from the "contracted Bianchi identity." [2] Also, the curl of the "gravitational field vector" is exactly zero in the absence of moving sources, due to symmetries of Riemann's tensor. It follows, from Stokes' Theorem, that the gravitational field is conservative and has a potential function. Energy is conserved.
  9. ↑ Einstein attempted to explain the paradox based on the acceleration that one twin uniquely undergoes, but the length of travel can simply be extended such that any effect from acceleration would be de minimis.

References

  1. ↑ https://www.livescience.com/65332-hubble-wrong-speed.html
  2. ↑ https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/f/Friedmann-Lemaitre+Universe
  3. ↑ http://www.tgdaily.com/space-features/65491-why-is-the-sun-so-round
  4. ↑ Lemonick, Michael D. (November 6, 2014). "Black hole fails to destroy mystery cosmic cloud." National Geographic website.
  5. ↑ Templeton, Graham (November 30, 2015). "Quasars are disappearing and astronomers aren't sure why." ExtremeTech website.
  6. ↑ https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212
  7. ↑ https://simonsfoundation.org/features/science-news/mathematics-and-physical-science/alice-and-bob-meet-the-wall-of-fire/
  8. ↑ Isaacson, Walter (2008). Einstein: His Life and Universe (New York: Simon and Schuster), p. 390. Retrieved from GoogleBooks archive on February 19, 2015.
  9. ↑ Einsteinian error: The 25-year-old supernova that could change the speed of light forever
  10. ↑ New Scientist (Jan. 2, 2014)
  11. ↑ https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.3720
  12. ↑ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682
  13. ↑ http://www.hindustantimes.com/Roll-over-Einstein-Law-of-physics-challenged/Article1-749189.aspx - note that a similar observation of faster-than-light speeds was also made in 2007 (with a larger margin of error).
  14. ↑ http://junkscience.com/2012/03/21/no-you-still-cant-go-faster-than-light/
  15. ↑ http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19088/1/98-0296.pdf
  16. ↑ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23410705/
  17. ↑ https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1873
  18. ↑ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47101905
  19. ↑ https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3781
  20. ↑ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100409-black-holes-alternate-universe-multiverse-einstein-wormholes/
  21. ↑ https://www.economist.com/node/17035953
  22. ↑ Mystery:Why Is the Kilogram Losing Weight?
  23. ↑ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html ("A varying speed of light contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity, and would undermine much of traditional physics. But some physicists believe it would elegantly explain puzzling cosmological phenomena such as the nearly uniform temperature of the universe.")
  24. ↑ Hunt for gravitational waves discovers unexpected data instead.
  25. ↑ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space
  26. ↑ http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/i13/p1446_1 . The popular science press promotes black holes to a far greater extent than wormholes.
  27. ↑ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5255/abs/227270a0.html
  28. ↑ Statement in awarding the coveted Fields Medal
  29. ↑ http://www.wbabin.net/weuro/qingping1.pdf
  30. ↑ https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504223
  31. ↑ http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279
  32. ↑ http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2012/feb/28/1.
  33. ↑ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26248-ripples-from-dawn-of-creation-vanish-in-a-puff-of-dust.html
  34. ↑ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01654285
v • d • e
Counterexamples
Counterexamples to:
v • d • e
Theory of Relativity
Theories
Geometry
Controversy and disproofs
Liberal pseudoscience
See also
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&oldid=2207406"