37
edits
Changes
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 22:07, August 18, 2010
, 22:07, August 18, 2010no edit summary
:::Sorry, Pete, but truth is not relative on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:04, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
:::Sorry, Pete, but truth is not relative on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:04, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
::::I agree, truth is not relative, neither here nor anywhere. However, it seems to me, but the laws of logic, that exactly one of the following statements must be true -
::::1. The Bible is true
::::2. The Qu'ran is true
::::3. Neither are true
::::You are assuming #1 to falsify #2 and #3. Then why can't I assume #2 to falsify #1 and #3. That seems perfectly in line with what you are doing. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:07, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
== Black Holes are High Entropy ==
== Black Holes are High Entropy ==
Point 16 states that black holes are highly ordered, thus possess low entropy. However, black hole entropy is understood to increase as expected by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: [http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v7/i8/p2333_1]. The citation refuting a similar proposition by Stephen Hawking is also not a citation, but an assertion by some individual. It would be more effective to cite peer-reviewed research showing black holes do not possess entropy through these mechanisms. [[User:AAckermann|AAckermann]] 14:47, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
Point 16 states that black holes are highly ordered, thus possess low entropy. However, black hole entropy is understood to increase as expected by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: [http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v7/i8/p2333_1]. The citation refuting a similar proposition by Stephen Hawking is also not a citation, but an assertion by some individual. It would be more effective to cite peer-reviewed research showing black holes do not possess entropy through these mechanisms. [[User:AAckermann|AAckermann]] 14:47, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
== Searchlight Paradox ==
Number 30 is a misunderstanding of relativity. The essence of the argument is that the "spotlight (that is, where the light ends)" will move faster than the speed of light, moving from point A to point B faster than the speed of light. However, the inaccuracy in this thinking is that the light at point A and point B are not the same - point A and point B share no common photons.
Think of it like a water hose. You are spraying water onto the lawn. Then you turn around, 180 degrees, and spray on the street. Did the water on the lawn move to the street? No, they are two different sets of water.
Also, there is no violation in the transmission of information, because point A and point B are not communicating with each other - the searchlight is communicating with point A, and THEN with point B.
I await the removal of this counterexample. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:07, 18 August 2010 (EDT)