3
edits
Changes
Debate:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account? (view source)
Revision as of 16:11, June 5, 2010
, 16:11, June 5, 2010→Discussion
The moral of this story is, "Don't invoke complicated physics/maths/whatever if you failed it earlier in life". [[User:Tristan|Tristan]] 18:02, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
The moral of this story is, "Don't invoke complicated physics/maths/whatever if you failed it earlier in life". [[User:Tristan|Tristan]] 18:02, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
Ha! Finally someone who knows what they are talking about! The guy/chick above me is correct. But he/she failed to address one point that I think all the conservatives in here need to understand: Relativity, including general relativity, is NOT a theory about RELATIVES. It is a theory about ABSOLUTES! That's why Einstein originally wanted to call it "the theory of INVARIANCE." Historical note: the reason his name didn't prevail is because the term "relativity" had already been in use to describe how being in different inertial frames affects physical measurements since around the time of Galileo (i.e. the term was NOT new, and Einstein didn't want it for his theory).
Relativity is about the fact that ALL OBSERVERS AGREE ON THE SPACETIME INTERVAL. They may disagree on the SPACE or TIME interval alone, but ALL will agree on the SPACETIME interval. The theory described a FOUR DIMENSIONAL universe, and the FOUR-quantities (4-momentum, 4-D spacetime interval, etc) are all CONSERVED in every reference frame, and many of these things are numerically the same in every reference frame (the spacetime interval, speed of light, the laws of physics, etc). Note: high school and introduction courses to relativity will not go into the details of the four dimensional nature of the theory on account of the fact that the mathematics are more difficult (tensors, linear algebra, non-Euclidean geometry, etc).
In short, there is a great deal of ignorance about the theory and it's contributing to an irrational fear of it among conservatives and Christians.
Further, the page on the two theories is full of misunderstandings. I wonder if it was written by some undergrad using a creationist source as a reference.
==NO==
==NO==