Difference between revisions of "Debate:Counterexamples to relativity points"

Revision as of 14:03, February 1, 2012

This is an organised list of points made on the talkpage for counterexamples to relativity. This will be updated as more points are made, including old points which are not yet included. This page is intended as a resource for those wishing to make a contribution to the counterexamples to relativity discussion, to help ensure they aren't repeating old arguments, and saving everyone's time.

Format of this page...

POINT [counterxample] Objection A [objection to the counterexample]

Response A [response to objection A]

Response B [response to response A]

Response C [response to objection A]

Objection B [new objection to the counterexample]

Points with outstanding objections to the counterexample (currently all on this page)

POINT Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found. Objection- The lack of experimental confirmation so far of gravity waves does NOT falsify the theory. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Response- It is when billions of dollars are spent looking for it and they aren’t found. If you were looking for a lost item in your backpack and are unable to find it there, you wouldn’t conclude that it could be in your backpack.

Response- But neither would you conclude that the lost item doesn’t exist, which is what the counterexample is arguing.

POINT The acceleration of the expansion of the universe confounds relativity Objection- Untrue. The formulas contain a cosmological constant which fully accounts for the accelerated expansion.

Response- Reliance on a cosmological constant has failed before.

Response- That doesn’t mean it will always fail. Just because football team A loses a game to football team B does not mean that A will always lose to B.

POINT 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." Objection- “Only for non-relativistic momentum (p=mv). SR gives the formula E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2 , rearranged to p=√((E^2-m^2 c^4)/c^2 ), which allows light, having no mass, to have momentum.

Response- Has that been experimentally verified?

Response- Yes. E=hf (which allows light, having no mass, to still have energy). This has been experimentally verified, and explains blackbody radiation, the photoelectric effect, and the Compton Effect.

POINT The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions. Objection- It is more likely that there is something wrong with that particular standard kilogram, rather than that the difference is caused by relativity/lack thereof. Humorous objection- I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one. Can I blame relativity?

POINT The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity. Objection- If Creationism is correct, then this point is incorrect as the universe was never small enough for quantum effects to have dominated. Therefore, even though scientists admit the inconsistencies between GR and quantum mechanics, Conservapedia should not allow this point, as it contradicts the Bible. [Perhaps the point could be reworded].

POINT The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement. Objection- AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster than light.

Response- Relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance (which cannot seriously be disputed in QM) whether a type of information is transmitted or not.

Response- No experiment conducted has proven action-at-a-distance, only interpretations which imply AAAD (believed by some respected physicists).

Response- QM experiments have shown that a pair of spinning, entangled photons can be separated a great distance, and that the mere observation of the spin of one of those photons immediately removes the uncertainty about the spin of the other photon a far distance away.

Response- Some people do interpret the observation of one photon as affecting the other photon. But there is no proof of that. You could prove it if the observation transmitted information, but no one has done that .

POINT The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51. Objection- This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not 'true and verifiable’.

Response- There are no Counterexamples to the Bible, so this conflict is a serious one.

Objection- This is usually considered a miracle, and hence a suspension of natural laws.

No miracle in the Bible violates logic, yet the Theory of Relativity insists that action-at-a-distance is impossible as a matter of logic.--Andy Schlafly 18:52, 7 January 2012 (EST)

Logic says that it is impossible for anything to not be restricted by time. However, God can influence events in the past and future, as easily as the present, and hence is not restricted by time. Hence, the laws of logic do not restrict God, and the Theory of Relativity would be no obstacle to the performance of the miracle. - JamesCA 09:03, 1 February 2012 (EST)

All objections to the faster than light neutrinos at the LHC: Argument has become moot as it is no longer a hasty addition (all comments against the counterexample took objection to the hastiness).