Changes

-->

-->

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 show that the mathematical theory is incorrect:

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 show that the mathematical theory is incorrect:

#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 the latest 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>

#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 the latest 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>

#"[[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>

#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>  

#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>

#[[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>

#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.

#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.