Difference between revisions of "Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity"

Latest revision as of 07:36, January 16, 2022

For a point-by-point summary of this page, see Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points.

See also the page Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity

This Talk Page is for Discussion Focused on the Improvement of the Corresponding Article
Your post should not deviate from the aforementioned purpose; this is not a page for debate on the topic. Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Please place new text under old text; click here to add a new section.	Archives: 1, 2, 3
For article guidelines please see the Commandments and Guidelines

1 Notice of Pending Revision
2 Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.
3 Previous arguments
4 A few more things
5 Recent reversion
6 Neutrinos do not travel faster than light
7 Biblical Examples
8 The roundness of the sun
9 Gravitational waves found
10 Lede quote
11 Removing material
12 27. RE:PSR B1913+16
13 Force acting on a mass
14 #47: Historical evidence suggests that the year used to have 360 days. However, Relativity cannot explain how the orbit or the rotation of Earth could have changed enough to give us the current 365.24-solar-day year.
15 Protect this page
16 Set back to version of 1 December -- explanation
17 Inertia
18 Parodist
19 Action-at-a-distance according to the Bible
- 19.1 John 4:46-54
- 19.2 Matthew 15:28
- 19.3 Matthew 27:51
20 Widely Understood
- 20.1 Andy, you are missing the point of this section
21 Relativity Conflicts with Bible
22 Einstein’s Relativity and Relativism: Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a powerful argument for absolute truth.
23 The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.
24 Consider removing point #1
25 Einstein was an idiot

Notice of Pending Revision

It's been over a week now since the reversion (on 9^th December) of several edits I made. Despite my request, now explanation has been posted, in contrast to the explanations I gave for each of my changes. I therefore see it only fit to return the article to the state I left it in.

However, to avoid 'edit wars' I think it only fair to give notification of this, to allow a final chance for justification of the reversion.

The specific changes are:

Removal of the item: '27. 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.' since it is a duplicate of '10. 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?'

Removal of '26. 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. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.' After much discussion on this page, it seems generally agreed that there useful devices in existence. (I appreciate that some mention of GPS may be necessary, but a footnote, however valid, cannot justify the presence of the invalid section in the main article to which it is attached. GPS can have it's own separate entry on this page as a counterexample, if need be.)

AugustO 10:35, 31 December 2011 (EST)

Removal of '30. The Ehrenfest Paradox ...', '31. The Twin Paradox ...' and '10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle...' since these are paradoxes and (as discussed above) are not appropriate to a page of counterexamples. These entries have already been moved to and expanded upon in the main Relativity page.

--QPR 10:26, 17 December 2011 (EST)

I've now implemented these changes since no objection has been forthcoming to my explaination above, posted in accordance with editting etiquette. If there are any objections please discuss them here rather than engaging in revert wars. --QPR 13:36, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Sorry, just noticing these comments now. Let's discuss before removing insights from entries.

Items 27 and 10 are similar, but not identical. 27 highlights a conflict between Relativity and basic principles of physics; item 10 emphasizes an internal contradiction in the theory that remains unanswered.

Item 26 remains unrebutted. Relativity has produced nothing of value.

Item 30 and 31 are logical problems which are valid counterexamples, given that Relativity claims to be based on logic.--Andy Schlafly 22:58, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Items 10, 27, and 31 should be taken out because they are just wrong, and make Conservapedia look lazy. Anyone who has learned about relativity from any college-level textbook less than about 40 or 50 years old knows how to do the calculations involving relativistic velocity, momentum, force, and acceleration. Our readers know this, and items 10 and 27 will just leave them scratching their heads about the diligence of Conservapedia. Item 31, the "twin paradox", is also very well known. The fact that something has the word "paradox" in its name doesn't mean that the subject is flawed. Otherwise, we would have to take the Russel paradox too seriously, and perhaps conclude that this: "The next sentence is false. The preceding sentence is true" means that the universe will blow up. The phrase "twin paradox" is simply a name. Everyone knows what is going on. Even Einstein. If it were actually a counterexample, this fact would be well known by now.JudyJ 10:11, 31 December 2011 (EST)

10: 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? It applies to the relativistic mass: that is observable in a cyclotron. So, it is one of those question you may speculate or philosophy all day long, but do the experiment (and the mass), and it is answered.
27: 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. In light of the above, this seems to be wrong.
30: The Ehrenfest Paradox interesting paradox, solvable and no counterexample
31: The Twin Paradox no counterexample to relativity, it's solved in any physic's course on this subject
26: The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory please re-read the archives, they include plenty material on the GPS (though you seem to ignore it)

AugustO 10:36, 31 December 2011 (EST)

On the points 10 and 27 issue, whilst they may or may not be duplicates, may or may not be counterexamples, they're still just plain wrong, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of relativity. According to Special Relativity, the inertial mass of a body appears the same to all observers who are in the same inertial frame of reference (i.e. who are moving at the same velocity as each other, which may be different from that of the body being observed). If a force is applied to the body it will produce an acceleration of the same magnitude (though obviously in a different direction) regardless of the direction of the force. The force itself can in no sense be an 'observer' since it has no velocity. For observers in a different non-inertial frame, they will observe a different magnitude of acceleration, but it will still be the same regardless of the direction of the force. --QPR 12:27, 31 December 2011 (EST)

I deleted #10 and #27. AugustO 11:06, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Andy, you've reverted an edit that everyone involved in the discussion other than yourself seems to be agreed upon. Can you please at least attempt to justify your position? --QPR 13:20, 1 January 2012 (EST)

deletion of educational information is disfavored on this site; deletions restored How can the perpetuation of false information be educational? AugustO 15:37, 1 January 2012 (EST)

This entire page is ludicrous. If you don't believe in Einstein's relativity, then do you believe in Galilean relativity? If Einstein's relativity is correct up to small corrections, does it invalidate cultural relativism? Ironically, this page signifies to me that Conservapedia itself is an exercise in relative truth; the idea that individuals are entitled to make up whatever facts are consistent with their preconceptions. Aram 16:26, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.

As a source for the statement this discussion on physicsforum.org is given. Here are all the contributions to this discussion:

A Dhingra	The moment the magnetic field is generated, it should take some time to reach some distance. It cannot reach infinity instantly, it should have some speed, and that speed cannot be more than that of light. So let’s say that the newly generated magnetic field, through a current carrying wire, travels with the speed of light. Now for the application of the faraday’s law, let’s bring a magnet near a solenoid, through which initially no current flows, and make the magnet move with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case? Take another case, when instead of a magnet we have a different circuit containing a solenoid through which current flows when the switch is made on, and this circuit is held stationary moving the other one with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case? What I think is that, as the system without current is moving as fast as the magnetic field … it never gets the chance to cut the magnetic field and cause induction to occur in the solenoid. So there should be no induction. But there is relative motion between the two systems and (also there is NO time varying magnetic field through the moving solenoid,)AND no induced current will be produced ... so will the induction take place or not...?? if induction does not take place then the principle or relativity goes wrong......
DaleSpam	You cannot make a magnet move with the speed of light. It is a physically impossible premise, so you shouldn't be surprised that assuming it leads to contradictions.
A Dhingra	... can't it be just a thought experiment like many other paradoxes available.... with that assumption, think about the result.......
DaleSpam	Obviously, if you violate the principle of relativity in your question then the answer must be that the principle of relativity is violated. It is just the most basic logic. Non-physical assumptions lead to non-physical conclusions. This says nothing whatsoever about physics, only about your question.
A Dhingra	ok........ i agree that the situation is not realistic........ but still i didn't like the fact that one should not think beyond the laws made by humans himself.......
DaleSpam	This is elementary logic. If you have any set of axioms (A) which logically imply some result (B) then if your premise is not(B) then you must logically conclude not(A). This is called transposition and is one of the fundamental rules of logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic) SR logically implies that a solenoid must move slower than light (STL), therefore if you assume that a solenoid can move with the speed of light you must logically conclude that special relativity (SR) is violated. Written in the usual format for logic: (SR → STL) ↔ (~STL → ~SR) Whether or not the situation is realistic and whether or not SR is a "law made by humans himself" is actually only a secondary concern. This is primarily an exercise in basic logic. Note that I am agreeing with your OP. Under the stated premise (~STL) you must indeed logically conclude that "the principle of relativity goes wrong" (~SR).
vector22	to make the experiment fair you would have to calculate what would happen to the solenoid at half light speed and then go from there.
netheril96	If you want to think beyond relativity, invent your own laws of physics. If you want to explain in terms of relativity, then think within relativity.
A Dhingra	can you help me go about finding this result...... (considering the magnetic field to be varying with time ...... as it is getting produced ...

How does this discussion support the claim? This source seems to be unsuitable and therefore it should be deleted, and the statement marked again to be unsourced.

AugustO 02:00, 2 January 2012 (EST)

Previous arguments

I'm creating a page Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points, the purpose of this is to ensure that arguments are not repeated by people who find the article, not realising that their objections have already been discussed, and removed as part of a cleanup of the talkpage. The page is NOT a place to make points, but a place to see if your objection has already been made, and save everybody time by reading the responses yourself, and then bringing up the objection only if you have a new point to make. Because the numbers for counterexamples change, the page will not include the number of the counterexample, only the text of it. Although I will try to put them in order. I know that to begin with, many old arguments will not be included, but hopefully it will eventually become a very useful resource for those wishing to make contributions to the page. - JamesCA 21:29, 4 January 2012 (EST)

While I appreciate the positive intent behind this idea, I do fear that it risks making Conservapedia look even sillier in this area than it already does. The problem is the implicit suggestion that this new page is in any way 'definitive'. Given that the issues surrounding Einsteinian Relativity have been discussed across the planet for over a century, and that the results of those discussions are available on-line, in textbooks and elsewhere, then it is unlikely that anyone will give a page on Conservapedia very much credence, particularly if it is seen to support this page, which puts forth views that very few with an understanding of the field share.

The real problem is that the counterexamples page itself is not a genuine encyclopaedia entry, but the personal fiefdom of one contributor with little understanding of the subject matter and a bee in his bonnet about a spurious connection between Einsteinian Relativity and Moral Relativism. Unfortunately that contributor has administrator privileges, which he finds more effective in making his case than resorting to rational argument. Perhaps it would be better if the counterexamples page itself became an essay page, to make absoultely clear that it presents a personal point of view. --QPR 10:06, 5 January 2012 (EST)

Anyone who finds Conservapedia silly because of this page will not think it is any sillier because of the new page. For many who see this page, it is a joke, and won't think any less of it because of the new page. The problem with turning this page into an essay is that those who support this page believe that it is not merely a page of personal opinion, but factually accurate. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer at the top of the page then? Something like 'this should not be seen as approving of the counterexamples, but as approval of productive discussion concerning the points'. Also, it should be noted that at the moment, every counterexample listed on the new page have outstanding objections to them, which have not been answered. - JamesCA 21:05, 5 January 2012 (EST)

I hate to go raining on the parade again here, but science is argued by evidence--it is not enough to produce a counter example and highlight the "god of the gaps". There are paradoxical observations under any established paradigm in any field. This does not mean that the entire paradigm is incorrect, simply that there are gaps in the evidence that must be addressed in order to improve extant models. This is the primary reason that trained scientists find this page silly. There are tons of holes in relativity, just as there were massive holes in Darwin's original theory of natural selection (as a biologist, I am far more familiar with how the latter example has been, quite successfully, addressed), the notion that "there are some discrepancies with theory X, therefore goddidit" is an obvious logical fallacy. Rather than poking holes in an outdated model, it is far more scientific to argue in favor of an alternate model using evidence. The central caveat here, and one that must be carefully beaten out of every experiment, is that evidence cannot be approached with the intention of supporting a particular hypothesis--a model must be built around the evidence, not the other way around. That's why scientists laugh at the term "creation science", science is not about hunting for evidence in support of a pre-formed theory, it is about impartially collecting evidence and then letting said evidence speak for itself.

Having said that. I must acknowledge that this article is not explicitly (although, it is implied) about advancing one viewpoint over another--it is simply about highlighting perceived inconsistencies in the theory of relativity. By itself, that is not a ridiculous premise at all. However, because this page is more of an editorial than an academic encyclopedia article, this page itself probably should have been classified as an "essay" to begin with. --RudrickBoucher 14:13, 6 January 2012 (EST)

In my opinion, the article is really a list of anomalies and paradoxes, not counterexamples. The anomalies are observations that need some additional explanation, and that may or may not require an adjustment to relativity. The paradoxes seem like contradictions or contrary to common sense, but have explanations. RSchlafly 00:58, 7 January 2012 (EST)

If someone thinks that Relativity must be true as a matter of logic, then any and all evidence to the contrary is not going to change that view. "Paradox" might be an appropriate term for ostensible contradictions in logic. But the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science.--Andy Schlafly 19:00, 7 January 2012 (EST)

No, it is the term "true as a matter of logic" that is not suitable for observable science. Perhaps your real complaint is with those who push scientific statements as being true as a matter of logic. If so, I suggest renaming the article to "Counterexamples to Einsteinian thinking". RSchlafly 01:09, 8 January 2012 (EST)

I think at least one major college teaches Relativity as a course in the math department rather than being listed primarily in the physics department.--Andy Schlafly 15:28, 8 January 2012 (EST)

If the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science, what are they doing on this page? --QPR 17:26, 8 January 2012 (EST)

Strictly speaking, all sciences are "observational" sciences; the semantic distinction between observational science and experimental science is arbitrary at best. Even in a tightly-controlled experiment, the goal is still to observe the outcome of the experiment in order to make some inference about the processes involved. In other words, an experiment is intended as nothing more than an indirect observation of natural phenomena that are not readily directly observable.

A "paradox", by the most reductive definition, is when the available evidence suggests two contradictory hypotheses. Whereas an "anomaly" is an observation that does not conform to the hypothesis suggested by the previously available evidence. Both of these terms are quite appropriate to use in any scientific or logical context. When a scientist encounters a paradox or an anomaly, it implies that there is a fundamental gap in the theoretical understanding of his or her field. Seeking out evidence to address these gaps allows for scientists to adjust their theoretical models in order to more precisely explain the observed phenomena. --RudrickBoucher 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

RudrickBoucher, since we already established that you are not a biologist, shouldn't you say "as someone who likes to pretend to be a biologist". Conservative 20:59, 8 January 2012 (EST)

Conservative, I have a BS in cell and molecular biology (CMB) from the top undergraduate CMB program in the country, several years of laboratory experience doing developmental biology research, just as many publications (a couple of which, I first-authored), I also have teaching experience in introductory biology (AP biology and college-level intro bio), graduate level course-work in developmental biology, and, as of this coming fall, I will either be a first-year medical student or a developmental biology PhD candidate (I've been accepted into programs for both, but not a combined MD/PhD program just yet). In short, I am allowed to call myself a "biologist" because it is my profession--it may sound pretentious, but it saves on typing. --RudrickBoucher 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

RudrichBoucher, a profession is something one does to earn money and have a net positive cash flow, while students often invest money in education and often have low earnings or debt accumulation. Perhaps you should consider taking an introductory course in finance so you better understand the concepts of cash flow and investment! :) I would also suggest taking a course in ethics at a Christian university so you no longer claim to be a biologist and then retract that claim like you did at this wiki. Conservative 22:48, 8 January 2012 (EST)

I was paid for my research and for the teaching. Although, admittedly, not very well for either (as neither science nor teaching pays particularly well). I retracted the claim on the "15 questions" essay only after you had already edited it--in the name of diplomatically avoiding a pointless edit war. Similarly, I referenced my biological inclination above as a gesture of humility, to admit that my background in physics is relatively limited. On that note, what are your credentials? Have you spent seven years meticulously learning a specific field like I have? Have you published any papers? Are you a member of any professional research societies? Admittedly, I have at least another six years of education to go, but I can legitimately claim some level of expertise in my field. I don't say these things to brag, say them to lend credibility to my arguments. Finally, as I've mentioned before, I was raised Catholic and I spent my first two years of college at a Methodist school--where I did have the privilege of taking an ethics class (and I very much enjoyed it). So please, let's cut the ad hominem attacks and focus on the discussion at hand. --RudrickBoucher 23:44, 8 January 2012 (EST)

Of those who credit Einstein for relativity, they often argue that Einstein's approach was superior because he ignored observations and presented relativity as being something that must be true as a matter of logic. The Einstein scholars acknowledge that Lorentz and Poincare had all the relativity formulas before Einstein, but Lorentz and Poincare were not true believers because they conceded that the theory could be disproved by experiment.

So the case could be made that there is an Einsteinian-relativity-philosophy that is a is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions, that is based on postulates taken on faith, and that ignores experimental evidence. If so, then maybe the page should be explicit about what is being attacked. All real science is based on experimental evidence. RSchlafly 21:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

RSchlafly, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that even Einstein considered relativity to be a mathematical approximation. One that precisely, but still somewhat inaccurately, explained the then-available evidence; in a manner similar to the proverbial physicist who, for ease of calculation, treats a horse as a circle. Anybody who has taken more than a year of calculus-based physics (or, even introductory college astronomy), knows the very real limitations of relativity. If anything, these limitations are just as dogmatic as relativity itself. Therefore, the notion that questioning relativity is taboo in intellectual circles (an underlying premise of this page) is patently ridiculous. Poking holes in relativity, and then seeking to explain them, has been one of the great ongoing projects in physics for the past seventy years. --RudrickBoucher 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

I agree that questioning relativity is not taboo. The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics was for observations that caused a modification of general relativity. The biggest physics story of the year was the Italian claim that neutrinos go faster than light, contrary to relativity. Physicists often talk about replacing relativity with some unified field theory or quantum theory. RSchlafly 02:51, 9 January 2012 (EST)

That makes me wonder why there isn't a "Counterexamples to Quantum Mechanics" page here as well. --RudrickBoucher 09:11, 9 January 2012 (EST)

There are a lot of anomalies and paradoxes in quantum mechanics also. RSchlafly 18:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)

A few more things

All right, more problems with this article:

15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

15: General relativity does not predict gravitons! Gravitons are massless spin-two particles predicted by QFT that lead to linear GR. (Though the spirit is different; in QFT, the h's--the metric perturbations--are a tensor representing field strength on a background Minkowski spacetime. In GR these represent curvature in spacetime.)
18: Untrue--Consider the Dirac equation. It predicted spin, which was not predicted by Schrodinger theory. It also predicted negative energy states (antiparticles), and QFT has been fundamental to particle physics.
24: Yet another horrible misunderstanding. Consider an ideal gas with N particles. Assume the total number of particles is conserved (it obviously doesn't have to be, but this is an idealized case). First of all, Newtonian gravity also predicts that a star will contract to a point without hydrostatic pressure--due to their mutual gravitational attraction. Should we start a "counterexamples to gravity" page? You've forgotten one thing: there's a term in the expression for the entropy that involves thermal energy!!! In other words (roughly speaking) the gas "warms up" so that the second law of thermodynamics is not violated. AndyFrankinson 20:43, 8 January 2012 (EST)

Very well said! While I'm in a commenting-frenzy, I'd like to add to your points.

Re: #15. It's not a waste of time or money to reject a hypothesis. To quote Enrico Fermi, "If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery."

Re: #18. Relativity HAS led to other [1].

Re: #24. The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. In the case of stellar black hole formation, gravitational pressure must exceed the sum of the thermal pressure, supplied by ongoing fusion in the stellar core, and the core degeneracy pressure, provided courtesy of the Pauli exclusion principle. Achieving this condition is, necessarily, a very violent event, complete with giant explosions, gamma ray bursts, and spewing jets of super-heated gas. When considering the entirety of the system giving rise to a black hole, and not just the resulting black hole itself, entropy certainly does increase. --RudrickBoucher 23:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

Hello! Thanks for the comments. And sorry about #24, like I said, the model I gave is slightly idealized b/c I haven't studied the subject in detail. AndyFrankinson 07:58, 9 January 2012 (EST)

No problem, I was in a bit of a commenting frenzy anyway. I'm guessing, because you referred to the ideal gas law, that you have some chemistry background?

Also, I've had students throw the second law of thermodynamics at me when I'm trying to explain evolution. The Earth's surface isn't a closed system either because it's constantly receiving energy from the sun--so the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable there as well. The only truly closed system that I can think of is in Washington...and, yes, entropy there is always increasing! --RudrickBoucher 09:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)

Actually, I'm terrible at chemistry! My background is in physics and math. You talk about ideal gasses in any physics class where you discuss thermodynamics. But yeah, that's one of the classical misunderstandings among creationists. One thing I saw suggested that next time someone brings it up, ask them about the other laws of thermodynamics. What I also like about the second law of thermodynamics argument is that they don't seem to understand what entropy is and why it increases. So yeah, next time someone brings it up ask them about those things. AndyFrankinson 20:18, 9 January 2012 (EST)

Can I please delete these "counterexamples"? AndyFrankinson 20:32, 12 January 2012 (EST)

I say go for it. You've justified why they should be deleted and your justification has met with no objection. If somebody wishes to restore them, they are welcome to object here.

As an aside, there does seem to be a disproportionate number of math and physics types on here. It is interesting how the life sciences tend to be predominantly liberal, whereas there's a more even distribution of political ideology in the physical sciences. There are conservative biologists (my old PI, for example), but they are very few and very far between. Knowledge of evolution does not seem to be a factor here, because understanding / acceptance of evolution is nearly universal in all of the sciences. In biology, there is a (seemingly true, in my experience) stereotypical "personality" in each of the sub-disciplines; to reference other fields, the age-old dichotomy between chemists and chemical engineers seems to mostly hold true. I have always wondered if the "personality" of the fields would lead to the observed political differences, or if maybe there is something deeper.

Because I am afraid that my above observation may be taken grossly out of context, I must add to it the disclaimer that I am not in any way suggesting "indoctrination" of students in one field versus another (or making some other similarly fatuous insinuation). I am simply making an observation, and speculating on its possible cause. --RudrickBoucher 21:25, 12 January 2012 (EST)

These counterexamples are not adequately rebutted above:

15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.

If Relativists are not even going to accept the results of experiments that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then they are a waste of money.

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

If you can give examples in your own words, then please do.

24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

This statement is true also. The dramatic decrease in entropy predicted by Relativity is contrary to the Second Law. No known mechanism offsets that decrease.--Andy Schlafly 23:39, 12 January 2012 (EST)

re: 15. The existence of gravitons was hypothesized in an attempt to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics. General relativity, by itself, does not predict the existence of gravitons. Furthermore, money spent testing a hypothesis that is ultimately not supported is not "wasted" (otherwise, I'd be out of a job)--the knowledge gained in testing the hypothesis allows a better hypothesis to be formulated.

re: 18. General relativity correctly predicted gravitational lensing, the existence of black holes, and the accelerating expansion of the universe. Additionally (and this is the first example that I can come up with off of the top of my head, RSchlafly probably knows a few better ones), relativistic effects must be compensated for to maximize the accuracy of satellite-based GPS systems.

re: 24. Black hole formation results in a net increase in entropy when considering the system as a whole. If you were to consider just the mass of the resultant black hole as a closed system, the degeneracy forces outweigh the net gravitational force significantly enough to prevent collapse into a schwarzschild radius. In just overcoming this by itself (as theoretically happens in super-massive black holes), there would be a massive output of emitted particles (radiation), which would still result in a net increase in the entropy of the system.

These counterexamples are not valid. Plain and simple. --RudrickBoucher 01:10, 13 January 2012 (EST)

General relativity did not predict the accelerating expansion of the universe. It predicted that the expansion would be slowing. Most physicists say that the GR equations must be modified to accommodate the accelerating expansion.

I don't get the entropy argument. I always assumed that a black hole would have all the entropy of the collapsing star and matter falling in. Is there a source for saying that black holes have low entropy? As the footnote says, Hawking has an explanation. Is there something wrong with that explanation? RSchlafly 04:29, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Um...I did address all your concerns, Andy....

These counterexamples are not adequately rebutted above:
15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.

If Relativists are not even going to accept the results of experiments that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then they are a waste of money. Wait, gravitons are predicted by GR?! Please send me a link to the derivation!!!

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

If you can give examples in your own words, then please do. I did!!!! Not to be rude, but did you see what I wrote above? Dirac equation! Spin! Antiparticles! Quantum Field theory! Particle physics! The Standard Model!

24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

This statement is true also. The dramatic decrease in entropy predicted by Relativity is contrary to the Second Law. No known mechanism offsets that decrease Yes, yes, yes, temperature increase is unknown to physics!

(Again I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just wondering if there was a glitch or something b/c, as I said, these were all addressed above.) AndyFrankinson 19:48, 13 January 2012 (EST)

The footnote for #8 says that the calculations are "complicated or contrived", and that the fundamental formula was "conformed" to match the observed perihelion precession. No one doubts that the derivation is complicated. But "conformed" seems to say that something was "tweaked" to match the precession. The formula is complicated to solve but simple to write: $\text{[math]}$ . There's nothing in it that can be "tweaked"--not 8, not pi, and not K (Newton's constant of gravitation.)JudyJ 17:08, 21 January 2012 (EST)

Yep, this is also confusing to me. Does Andy Schlafly know relativity? As you said, nothing can be tweaked in that equation (to "conform" to whatever events). The tensor that represents curvature has to have divergence 0, so that energy-momentum is locally conserved, and the 8*pi*G is determined from the fact that it has to reduce to Newtonian gravity in the weak-field limit. AndyFrankinson 19:47, 23 January 2012 (EST)

Recent reversion

Andy, while your recent change did keep the link to the rebuttal page, don't you think it would only be fair to also keep the note that the page is controversial? Regardless who is actually right or wrong, I don't think it would be fair to anyone reading 'The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia' for them to pick up the impression that the ideas on this page are not very widely disputed. --QPR 16:05, 29 January 2012 (EST)

The whole article is a list of relativity controversies. It says at the top that it is contrary to what liberals promote. Isn't that clear? RSchlafly 21:04, 29 January 2012 (EST)

The point is, I think, that the very idea that there is a liberal/conservative division on this is itself controversial. Personally, I have not seen the issue raised anywhere except on Conservapedia, and even then only by a very small subset of contributors.

On a broader point, if opposing liberal points of view is, by definition, controversial, and given that such opposition is the raison d'être of Conservapedia, wouldn't a better tagline be "The Controversial Encyclopaedia"?--QPR 08:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)

It's a common tactic for the media to label someone they don't like as "controversial". But does anyone ever hear a liberal theory or politician called "controversial"? Was Ted Kennedy ever called "controversial" by the media?--Andy Schlafly 23:43, 29 January 2012 (EST)

Does this make string theory conservative, as it is often labeled controversial? AugustO 02:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)

No, I didn't suggest that everything the media disparages as "controversial" is conservative. String theory is a challenge to liberal orthodoxy from the Left.--Andy Schlafly 02:18, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Just to nail this down Andy, do you or do you not think that this page is controversial?--QPR 08:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Also, your question about Ted Kennedy looks rhetorical with the implied answer of 'no', and yet the answer is very clearly 'yes'. Googling "Ted Kennedy" and "controversial" gives 6.4 million hits. Obviously that doesn't mean the term is being applied to him in all cases, but in many of them (e.g. http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/us/2009/08/26/ted-kennedy-controversy#slide=1) it clearly is. Can you clarify the point you were making about him?--QPR 08:27, 30 January 2012 (EST)

The term "controversial" is not a good term for string theory. The major aspects are not disputed. A subject is not conservative just because some journalist mislabels it. RSchlafly 12:14, 31 January 2012 (EST)

That's the problem with science journalism these days. It overstates the implications of a lot of findings, oversimplifies key concepts, and often fails to accurately convey consensus opinions in a particular field. --JHunter 17:35, 31 January 2012 (EST)

Just wanted to add to this: I have never seen GR disputed anywhere but here. (Save for quantum gravity, of course). AndyFrankinson 19:28, 2 February 2012 (EST)

Neutrinos do not travel faster than light

The same lab that originally broke the story has confirmed a flaw in their experiment. Dr. Sandro Centro stated, "In fact I was a little sceptical since the beginning, now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos.[...]I think they were a little bit in a hurry to publish something that was astonishing, and at the end of the day it was a wrong measurement."[2]

I hope he did not mean to say that, because neutrinos going at the speed of light would still contradict relativity (or other experiments). Neutrinos have mass, and must go slower than the speed of light. The article has a better statement: "they find that the neutrinos do travel at the same speed as light, within a small error range." RSchlafly 05:02, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

I took the part out - again: have a look at the updated press-release by CERN regarding the experiment: AugustO 10:48, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

The updates and corrections for the benefit of Relativists are less than persuasive. Is anyone claiming quote above ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is inaccurate? Note, by the way, that the CERN experiment is not the only one that suggested neutrinos can travel at least as fast as the speed of light.--Andy Schlafly 11:57, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

Andy, perhaps you could write to either the ICARUS Collaboration or CERN seeking clarification of their results. After reading the actual paper[3](not the press release), it seems that the team is quite confident that their latest results are in complete agreement with Relativity. "Based on seven neutrino events, our result is in excellent agreement with Lorentz dependent velocities of neutrinos and of light. Neutrinos and GPS measurements are found to be sharply coincident in time within an uncertainty of a few nanoseconds, in disagreement with the superluminal result reported by the OPERA Collaboration." Yet you contend that the results from the very same experiment actually disproves Relativity. In this instance I simply think you are wrong. But who's to say that my interpretation of an article is any more accurate than yours? Obviously, we both can't be right. I think there must be a better way to settle this matter than combing through press releases. --JoshuaB 13:33, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

The new, updated claims seem more like political correctness than real science. Does the paper compare the updated results to the independent prior findings, by another experiment, that also suggested that neutrino speeds conflict with the politicized desires of Relativists?--Andy Schlafly 00:55, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

Political correctness? Come off it Schlafly. You do realize that there's far more fame and glory to be had for a physicist to prove GR wrong than there is to add to the growing list of supporting evidence? You do understand that, right? --JoshuaB 01:57, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

The opposite is obviously true. Those who even question the Theory of Relativity are risking their careers. No grad student can expect to receive a doctorate if he questions relativity; no associate professor can expect to receive tenure if he does likewise; and no tenured professor will ever win the Nobel Prize for questioning relativity.--Andy Schlafly 15:31, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

Yep, and no one will ever win a Nobel prize for questioning whether the Earth is round either. --BradleyS 18:29, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

There aren't 39 counterexamples to the spherical shape of the Earth. But if a doctoral candidate, tenure-track professor, or Nobel Prize wannabe repeats one of the 39 Counterexamples to Relativity, then he's risking retaliation against his career by liberals.--Andy Schlafly 18:52, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

There aren't 39 counterexamples to relativity and this page documents in detail what's wrong with each alleged "counterexample". The acceptance of relativity has to do with the theory passing extensive experimental scrutiny and nothing to do with "liberals". --BradleyS 19:29, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly said: "No grad student can expect to receive a doctorate if he questions relativity[...]" Yes. If a doctoral candidate whipped out almost any of your "counterexamples", in anything short of a joking fashion, they most likely would be signaling the end of their academic carrier. Why? It's simple. Advanced degrees are awarded to students who have shown a mastery of their particular field of study. Presenting this list of counterexamples in a doctoral thesis would only go towards illustrating that the student does not have a thorough understanding of SR or GR and thus should not offered a degree. No political correctness. No liberal conspiracy.
Aschlafly went on to say: "...no tenured professor will ever win the Nobel Prize for questioning relativity." You are 100% correct on this one. Why? Because anybody can sit around questioning anything. It doesn't take any particular knowledge, skill, education, or keen intellect to lob endless unanswerable questions. Otherwise Glenn Beck would have won the Nobel (and every other prize) by now. No, the proverbial (and many times literal) money is in answering questions. --JoshuaB 14:09, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

Italic text== GPS and Relativity ==

I'm in the process of getting a debate under way on 'GPS and Relativity' over at Talk:Theory of relativity. A this stage I would rather just have some references, especially any which show that Relativity is not used in the GPS system. Once we have some good references to look at, possibly in a week or two, we can then consider the evidence. RolandPlankton 08:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

Relativity is, in fact, used in the GPS system. The correction equations that must be used on the receiving side equipment are given in the official GPS interface specification, IS-GPS-200G [4], p.92. section 20.3.3.3.3.1: User Algorithm for SV Clock Correction.

The polynomial defined in the following allows the user to determine the effective SV PRN code phase offset referenced to the phase center of the antennas with respect to GPS system time (t) at the time of data transmission. The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the twofrequency user for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This estimated correction accounts for the deterministic SV clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as well as for the SV implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential group delay. Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function...

Biblical Examples

You can't really use the Bible to prove that the Bible is correct. While I'm not disputing the Bible, that doesn't change the fact that it's a tautological argument. I could easily "prove" relativity by saying "Einstein said such-and-such" and conclude therefore that such-and-such is true. But in reality, that wouldn't prove anything because I'd essentially be saying "Einstein said this, therefore what Einstein said is correct". It's no different for the Bible. Even if we were to argue that the Bible represents absolute truth, keep in mind that our source for that is the Bible itself, so regardless of what you believe, it's still a tautological argument. I'm not going to remove the Biblical examples without discussion, but I don't think they belong here. Gregkochuconn 09:31, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

The roundness of the sun

I'm not completely familiar with the general and special theories of relativity, but what do they have to say about the roundness of the sun? DennyR 12:41, 18 August 2012 (EDT)

There is a relationship, though it's somewhat roundabout. See item #4 in the rebuttal page. JudyJ 17:54, 18 August 2012 (EDT)

Gravitational waves found

BBC article

LIGO Mark CS (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2017 (EST)

Lede quote

I would argue if anything needs to be changed it's the detail in point 4. The lede quote is recent and relevant, and more sources for it are available than just LiveScience. In looking into it more just now, I've found it's progressed. Apparently the evidence against relativity was so concerning to the scientific community they began immediately trying to explain it away and forced the person in charge to resign.[5][6] Evidence that the original results are wrong was just finished.[7] This displays the level of bias in the scientific community though, in trying to do all they can to protect the doctrine of relativity, and make it appear more substantiated and certain than it is. Maybe the quote should be removed, but it should be mentioned in point 4 regardless. That such major evidence was found in recent months against relativity and the scientific community sought so hard to cover it up, is news indeed. --Joshua Zambrano 05:47, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

No one mentioned in those articles believes that neutrinos travel faster than light. I don't see how the OPERA leaders' resignations provide any evidence. Sounds more like their team was ticked off at them for making them all look like fools. Spielman 13:12, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

The fact that it occurred like that shows relativity today is still under investigation, and not necessarily a proven fact - right? The scientific community is still trying to persuade everyone there is evidence for it. The effort to prove relativity correct is ongoing, rather than established like it was portrayed. --Joshua Zambrano 21:23, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

Removing material

Unless you are the site owner, please do not remove, dilute, or water down, or adulterate the items here. This page is extremely famous, and represents the views of the site owner. It has been quoted and cited in print and internet articles all over the world. It has over 1.8 million page views, more than 10 times as many as either the Counterexamples to an Old Earth and the Counterexamples to Evolution articles. If you think something is wrong, the Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity article is the place to bring it up.

I suppose "2+2=4" represents my views also, but the truth does not care whether I or anyone else agrees.--Andy Schlafly 23:59, 6 September 2012 (EDT)

Touché! Your point is well taken. Though I doubt that taking such a daring and controversial stand would get 1.8 million page views. :-) JudyJ 22:36, 17 September 2012 (EDT)

27. RE:PSR B1913+16

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.

I would like to suggest that this be removed as both points (1. lack of data and 2. divergence from relativistic predictions) were disproved by the publishing of this paper in The Astrophysical Journal in 2010. Fnarrow 00:35, 8 April 2013 (EDT)

Force acting on a mass

The example, "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?" needs to be rephrased to be more clear. Are we talking about measuring the force applied to the object or mesuring the change in trajectory of the object? The force acts on the object, but the sentence is currently phrased as if there are two possible different answers. The force will cause the trajectory of the object to change, which can be measured in specified frames of reference.

A good example would be a particle accelerator, or synchrotron. A charge particle is traveling at speeds that approach the speed of light. A magnetic field is applied to the particle to keep it traveling in a circular path. As the speed of the particle increases, the force applied to the particle must increase to keep it in the track of the particle accelerator. The force is applied at a right angle to the velocity of the particle. The calculations to determine the force needed to hold the particle to a circular path are well-tested and verified. Thanks, Wschact 22:42, 8 April 2013 (EDT)

#47: Historical evidence suggests that the year used to have 360 days. However, Relativity cannot explain how the orbit or the rotation of Earth could have changed enough to give us the current 365.24-solar-day year.

To the best of my knowledge, this has no relevance toward proving nor disproving the General or Specific Theory of Relativity... However, very little of my physics training was in the field, so please correct me if I'm wrong. If there is no objection, I will be removing it after the mandated 24 hour waiting period. (unless the length of day suddenly changes again, I suppose it might be shorter/longer than 24 hours in that case) Fnarrow 13:18, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

According to liberals, General Relativity predicts all gravitational interactions. It follows that whenever a gravity-related prediction is incorrect, Relativity has been disproven, don't you agree? Somehow the length of the day or year has changed, even though Relativity says the orbit should be static. Would you also support removing the other gravity-based examples #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #21, #41, #43, #44, #45? Of course not. Spielman 14:20, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

Honestly, yes I would... For reasons explained on Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity and through any number of scientific journals. Fnarrow 15:00, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

I agree with Fnarrow. I stumbled upon this page recently and thought it was a parody. I see that some of the stranger items have been removed. But #40 persists... what do tides have to do with relativity? And #39 pre-supposes that an object is traveling at the speed of light? These are parodies, right? AlexanderS 22:10, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

At least they finally got rid of the "Earthquakes in Ireland" example... I never could figure that one out. lol. But #4 still persists even thought it is easily explained by anyone who understands that it's surface is a plasma and not a solid as the citation presupposes. Anyway, I wouldn't go around agreeing with me too vocally, that's not a popular stance to take these days. Thanks for the support anyway though, Fnarrow 22:31, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

Protect this page

This page should be protected, as parodists seem to be attracted to editing it, and inserting their own information. brenden 13:47, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

I second the protection motion put forward by Brenden. As much as I 1. hate protected pages on a wiki which depends on "the best of the public" an 2. desperately want to personally replace this page with refutations of every example Aschlafly has made it clear that this page is one of the most popular on the wiki and that he stands by it. Therefore I think the following should happen:

Revert to last known "approved" version, looks like that would be "20:44, 10 January 2013" in my opinion.
Protected
Move and expand the notice which currently appears at the bottom re: "future edits" and the Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity. to the top of the page.
Allow only User:Aschlafly to change the article in the future when/if someone provides sufficient evidence on this talk page to convince him that their proposal warrants such display.

I will take care of numbers 1 and 3 after the mandatory 24 hour waiting period, I leave 2 and 4 up to someone with those powers. Thanks, Fnarrow 09:34, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

I concur with Brenden and Fnarrow. This is a highly technical subject, and while it reflects the best of the public, the constant back and forth consumes too much energy from the best of the public that could be devoted to other articles. The 20:44 10 Jan version seem appropriate to me. Thanks, Wschact 11:39, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

Are you sure that 10 January is the right target? That version includes the derided "earthquakes in Ireland" example, as well as a few other recently-purged items. AlexanderS 13:48, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

Watch out for the edits by the parodist Spielman, when selecting the revision. I haven't read the others yet, so I have no idea if they are also parody. brenden 14:05, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

Are those the ones Spielman listed in the above section (#2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #21, #41, #43, #44, #45)? Are those all parody edits? I tried contacting him (?) for clarification, but seems to be blocked. AlexanderS 14:30, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

He's a parodist, and his edits have never been in good faith. brenden 14:46, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

I'm open to any/all suggestions. 10 Jan may not be the "best possible date" but I chose it based upon the fact that it seems to align the most closely with both Aschlafly's most recent edit and the refutations offered on Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity. While I agree that some of the entries on that date seem to be either 1. parodies or 2. gross misunderstandings of what the Theory of Relativity actually is, I figured choosing the date which most closely matched those two criteria would require the least all around editing on both pages. As this is obviously a contentious topic, I just want to let everyone know that I won't be changing it myself, I'll leave that to someone higher on the food chain once a satisfactory agreement has been reached here. Thanks to everyone for participating in this discussion. Fnarrow 14:55, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

I also will wait, but in the meantime I have restored the two items deleted by AlexanderS. I would hope that Andy or someone who has spent more time than I have on the topic, will look at this page. A group of people have invested a lot of work on generating this list. If items are sourced, they should not be removed. If an item is a parody, then it should be removed because it will detract from CP's credibility. I have an open mind about this, but I also think that claims made on this page should be backed up by more detailed articles in CP. For example, the rotation of the Earth around the Sun should be covered in depth in the Earth article. If people disagree as to the relativistic effects on measuring the "year", we should give both sides of the controversy and let the reader decide. CP has at least four articles on relativity. We then summarize the "Counterexamples to Relativity" and also have a rebuttal essay. Anyone willing to read through all of that (even if the reader is a homeschooled high school student) will understand what to believe. I say lock at January 10, and then if someone wants to add or subtract from that, they can plead their case to Andy or some other Admin. Wschact 22:26, 25 April 2013 (EDT)

Set back to version of 1 December -- explanation

I have set the page back to the version of 18:45, 1 December 2012. This version was made by the site owner. To those who say that Spielman was a "parodist", I can say that his general edits on technical matters, including inductor, capacitor, semiconductor, laser, neutron, and the other relativity pages, have been sensible and responsible. I disagree with most of his edits to the counterexamples page, but I disagree with nearly everything on that page. To those who dislike the "warp-speed solenoid" example, I wish to point out that it was put in by the site owner at 22:57, 20 August 2011.

While I disagree with much of the content of the page, it should not be diluted by well-meaning editors. Here is why:

This was largely written by the site owner, and clearly represents his views. This is corroborated by his writings on other relativity pages elsewhere. While he did not personally put in Spielman's items, he has steadfastly defended many similar items on the list (Hulse-Taylor, Mercury precession, supraluminal neutrinos, gravitons, gravity waves, dark matter, black holes, the aether, action-at-a--distance) in talk page discussions here and on other relevant pages.
In addition to writing many (if not most) of the points on this page, Andy has had ample opportunity to remove material that he considers detrimental to Conservapedia's position on relativity. Most of Spielman's "parody" edits were made prior to Andy's last edit of 1 December 2012.
The "Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity" page adequately rebuts all of the points on the page. Andy accepts its existence—he has placed counter-rebuttals on it.
When users (AugustO, Wschact, et al.) have diluted other relativity pages, particularly the E=mc^2 page, Andy has been quick to revert.

Users (and that includes myself) who disagree with this page and the other relativity pages are simply going to have to accept that they will not be satisfied. They will just have to be satisfied with the "rebuttal" page, or will have to go elsewhere. We need to stop the bickering.

I see that Andy has brought us back to a set of 47 counterexamples. Could we please protect the page now? Thanks, Wschact 16:39, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

Why not welcome improvements? There have been many edits by others to this page that have strengthened it.--Andy Schlafly 16:42, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

In my view it is a cost/benefit calculation. I would rather have people spend their time developing substantive articles, including the articles about relativity. The "Counterexamples to Relativity" and "Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity" pages are more of an "op-ed" feature instead of being an integral part of the encyclopedia. I don't have the time to delve into each tendered counter-example and rebuttal. So, I would advise locking the Counterexamples down, subject to anyone making a request to add an additional bona fide counter-example. This subject is too easy to parody. For example, someone reading the "Earthquakes in Ireland" bullet would be tempted to add bullets for "Earthquakes in X" (where X is any country that has had an earthquake.) We need stated criteria for inclusion of new bullets and then we should enforce the criteria. So, protecting the article would be the next logical step. Wschact 17:22, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

Improvements? In reward for some of those "improvements" Spielman received a five-year block from Brenden. Rightly so, in my opinion, but it doesn't seem like very consistent policy. (Sorry if this is off-topic, but it just struck me as odd.) AlexanderS 19:29, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

Inertia

Number 29 says, "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." Does this person mean "inertial mass"? Thanks, Wschact 23:41, 25 April 2013 (EDT)

Good clarification. Edit mad as suggested. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 12:13, 16 December 2014 (EST)

Parodist

The counterexamples number 47, 48, 49 and 50 were added by a parodist. Should they be removed?--JoeyJ 11:57, 16 December 2014 (EST)

Yes, those additions should be removed. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly 12:10, 16 December 2014 (EST)

Well, that's kind of embarrassing that such items would remain on the list for two years. And even now their removal is based not on logic, but on the identity of the contributor. Isn't it conceivable that the speed-of-light solenoid (now #46) is also parody? AlexanderS 15:05, 4 January 2015 (EST)

My apologies, the solenoid item was added by Mr. Schlafly himself. So, not parody. AlexanderS 16:59, 4 January 2015 (EST)

Wikis are open to the public, and some people make incorrect edits, sometimes buried deep in an entry far beyond where most people would look. The significance of such activity is zero, and eventually such little-noticed edits are reverted. The only way to prevent such edits would be to close the wiki to the public, which would then miss out on many valuable insights from the best of the public.--Andy Schlafly 20:54, 4 January 2015 (EST)

Action-at-a-distance according to the Bible

“

The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.

”

That doesn't make any sense. Take e.g., John 4:46-54 - the question is: did the action take place instantaneously, or was it perhaps conveyed with the speed of light. But Cana and Capernaum are roughly 30km away from each other! Even today, we would have difficulties to make such measurements - as seen during the OPERA neutrino speed experiment of 2011.

How could the servants spot a difference of ca. 1/10.000 seconds? Answer: they couldn't

It's impossible to describe the breaking of a fever with such precision
Jesus said: "Go, your son lives" That takes considerably more time than 1/10.000s...
The fever left him at the seventh hour. Which one: Cana's or Capernaum's? Both differ by a couple of seconds, as all time-keeping was local!

Does the Bible claim that the healing was instantaneous? No, only that it took place roughly at the time Jesus spoke to the father. Jesus just tells him "Your son lives": it isn't said whether this is an observation of something which already had happened, a healing at this point of time, or a prophecy of an event in the future - all three possibilities are given (and impressive).

You have to twist the scripture towards your preferred interpretation if you wish to crowbar "action at a distance" into these verses. --AugustO 10:57, 19 March 2015 (EDT)

The Gospel passages are widely understood as describing action-at-a-distance. Also, please discuss first before repeatedly deleting something.--Andy Schlafly 12:28, 19 March 2015 (EDT)

Yes, Jesus acted over a distance - but instantaneously? That's your interpretation! If it is "widely understood" to happen instantaneously, you shouldn't have a problem to give some sources which corroborate this claim. I couldn't find any.

Furthermore: because of the technical problems which I described above, we cannot rely on eyewitnesses. Did Jesus Himself state that he has performed an action-at-a-distance, i.e., caused something in a distance without temporary delay? No, He didn't.

--AugustO 12:33, 19 March 2015 (EDT)

"Please discuss first before repeatedly deleting something": I'm happy to do so and I will present my arguments. Andy, I hope you will join the discussion!

I waited more than two days for the other site to engage in a meaningful discussion. It seems that we have reached an agreement. --AugustO 06:26, 22 March 2015 (EDT)

John 4:46-54

Jesus didn't claim that the healing took place instantaneously. Andy, do you think the nobleman and his servants were able to spot whether to events took place at the same time in Cana and Capernaum? If not, this example should be removed. --AugustO 14:22, 19 March 2015 (EDT)

The better translation is "Then the father realized that this was the same moment when Jesus said to him, "your son lives," so both he and his entire house believed." "Same moment" means simultaneously.--Andy Schlafly 16:47, 19 March 2015 (EDT)

"Then the father realized": how could the father judge that it happened "at the same moment", and not with a delay of 1/10,000 s? Answer: He couldn't - even if his son got better five minutes before he met Jesus, and Jesus just relayed this fact, or if the healing needed five minutes, and Jesus spoke about an event in the near future! For the father (and the Roman time-keeping abilities) it was enough that it happened in the same hour!

Everybody of a certain age knows what she or he did when Kennedy was shot. But does he really know what he did in the very moment the bullet struck the president? No, at best, he knows what he did when the transmission of the shot arrived. --AugustO 17:01, 19 March 2015 (EDT)

Matthew 15:28

καὶ ἰάθη ἡ θυγάτηρ αὐτῆς ἀπὸ τῆς ὥρας ἐκείνης. and her daughter was healed from the very hour We don't know where the daughter was. Though the mother could have left her in Cana, she could also be accompanying her! --AugustO 14:22, 19 March 2015 (EDT)

Matthew 27:51

Andy, you state: "The Greek "Καὶ ἰδού" in this context emphasizes the identical timing" - but we have a string of sentences joined by Καὶ: Καὶ ἰδοὺ τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ ἐσχίσθη ἀπ' ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω εἰς δύο, Καὶ ἡ γῆ ἐσείσθη, Καὶ αἱ πέτραι ἐσχίσθησαν, Καὶ τὰ μνημεῖα ἀνεῴχθησαν Καὶ πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμημένων ἁγίων ἠγέρθησαν, Καὶ ἐξελθόντες ἐκ τῶν μνημείων μετὰ τὴν ἔγερσιν αὐτοῦ εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν Καὶ ἐνεφανίσθησαν πολλοῖς. Obviously, not all of these events happened at the same time! And for the last four years, you haven't presented any scholarly source which would support your translation of idou! --AugustO 14:33, 19 March 2015 (EDT)

Widely Understood

Andy, the GPS is widely understood to take relativistic effects into account - and here, I can present examples ;-) --AugustO 12:49, 19 March 2015 (EDT)

The GPS adjustments are based on experimental observation, not contrived theoretical predictions by Relativity.--Andy Schlafly 10:30, 7 June 2015 (EDT)

Funny, how these experimental observations coincide with the theoretical predictions by relativity - one could see this as a confirmation of the theory.

But let's wait for Galileo - they are thinking about a different approach:

«Present navigation satellite systems, such as Galileo and GPS, employ Newtonian trigonometry to determine positions, using Earth stations as reference points. This approach would perform ideally if all the satellites and the receiver were at rest and far from Earth.»

«However, this is only correct as a first approximation – because of the level of precision needed by a GNSS, the distortions that Earth causes in nearby space and time (space-time curvature) and the effects of the relative motions between the satellites and the user (relativistic inertial effects) both have to be considered. These are accounted for by introducing relativistic corrections to the Newtonian theory. For a ground user, these corrections can be as large as 12 km after one day.»

«A simple way to avoid having to deal with the defects of Newtonian theory is to change the paradigm. Instead of modelling the system in a Newtonian framework and adding relativistic corrections, the positioning system could be modelled directly in general relativity. »

--AugustO 19:08, 7 June 2015 (EDT)

The "experimental observation" and "[contrived] theoretical predictions" happen to match. This should surprise no one, since relativity is correct. The GPS adjustments may be made by computers that are using observed ephemeris data from the satellites, but everyone involved knows that the basis for those adjustments (7 us/day up for SR; 45 us/day down for GR) is relativity. No one operating the GPS control stations will tell you that "We fudge the satellite clocks by 38 microseconds per day, but we don't know why this is needed." They knew that they would need the correction, based on relativity, before the satellites were launched; the correction mechanism was built in before launch. Very fine "tweaking" of the clocks is made by the control stations, but that's because of uncertainty of the satellites' orbits. The tweaking is not because relativity is wrong. See this article for an explanation of the 38 microsecond correction. SamHB 22:00, 7 June 2015 (EDT)

Andy, you are missing the point of this section

The GPS is widely understood to take relativistic effects into account - just google "GPS" "theory of relativity" and you get numerous links to universities, etc., most of which in favor of the statement. Nonetheless, this isn't good enough for you: predictably, you are ignoring all these voices, and just state that "The GPS adjustments are based on experimental observation, not contrived theoretical predictions by Relativity". I get it: "widely understood" isn't a yardstick for credibility.

Or is it? A little earlier, your only answer to

“

The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.

”

That doesn't make any sense. Take e.g., John 4:46-54 - the question is: did the action take place instantaneously, or was it perhaps conveyed with the speed of light. But Cana and Capernaum are roughly 30km away from each other! Even today, we would have difficulties to make such measurements - as seen during the OPERA neutrino speed experiment of 2011.

How could the servants spot a difference of ca. 1/10.000 seconds? Answer: they couldn't

It's impossible to describe the breaking of a fever with such precision
Jesus said: "Go, your son lives" That takes considerably more time than 1/10.000s...
The fever left him at the seventh hour. Which one: Cana's or Capernaum's? Both differ by a couple of seconds, as all time-keeping was local!

Does the Bible claim that the healing was instantaneous? No, only that it took place roughly at the time Jesus spoke to the father. Jesus just tells him "Your son lives": it isn't said whether this is an observation of something which already had happened, a healing at this point of time, or a prophecy of an event in the future - all three possibilities are given (and impressive).

You have to twist the scripture towards your preferred interpretation if you wish to crowbar "action at a distance" into these verses. --AugustO 10:57, 19 March 2015 (EDT)|}

was

The Gospel passages are widely understood as describing action-at-a-distance. Also, please discuss first before repeatedly deleting something.--Andy Schlafly 12:28, 19 March 2015 (EDT)

That was your whole argument! Sweet (predictable) irony! --AugustO 19:45, 8 June 2015 (EDT)

BTW: if you google "action-at-a-distance" "Matthew 15:28", virtually all results are connected with Conservapedia! So, at best, this passage is widely understood only by you as describing action-at-a-distance... --AugustO 19:45, 8 June 2015 (EDT)

Relativity Conflicts with Bible

The Bible describes action at a distance. Relativity falsely denies it.--Andy Schlafly 10:34, 7 June 2015 (EDT)

Andy, on March 19, 2015 you wrote: "please discuss first before repeatedly deleting something". Therefore, I laid out my argument at #Action-at-a-distance_according_to_the_Bible. I waited for two days, but you didn't address my points. Thus, I thought that you had conceded this point, and I deleted it from the list.

Now, I'd say it is your turn to discuss first before repeatedly adding something! Merely repeating your point of view isn't a discussion! So, please address my points above. For your convenience, a short summary:

Jesus never said that he made something happen instantaneously over a distance
The witnesses at that time couldn't know whether something happened instantaneously or with a delay.

--AugustO 14:39, 7 June 2015 (EDT)

BTW: take a look at Talk:Action at a distance#Biblical Example --AugustO 19:09, 7 June 2015 (EDT)

I don't understand the connection between this and moral relativity. Could someone please explain?

My understanding of the link is that they both simply pertain to the general notion of relativity, simply put, which can be applied in a way that allows the observer to see a steep slippery slope, if one accepts the notion that all things are relative. --Hacnocteestlucet (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2015 (EST)

Einstein’s Relativity and Relativism: Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a powerful argument for absolute truth.

Please read the article Einstein’s Relativity and Relativism: Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a powerful argument for absolute truth. Conservative (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2016 (EST)

Please unlock this page. I wish to add a picture to the article. Timematter (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2016 (EDT)

The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.

Let us make a thought experiment: imagine a glass fiber cable between Cana and Capernaum (some 90km). In Cana, the master switches on a light, in Capernaum, this is observed via cable by his servant. The servant than rides to Cana to discuss with his master whether he saw the light in the same instance it was switched on - or 1/10,000 second later.

What is the result when both are equipped with the best sun-dials available?

Hilarity!

--AugustO (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2017 (EDT)

Consider removing point #1

Consider removing #1, because the sources it cites (which are the National Geographic and the Scientific American) are not scientific peer-reviewed journals, and cannot be considered as actual scientific evidence. Neither of these actually cite an Also, specifically concerning the Scientific American, it does not actually state a specific computer model that has run on some computer. I had to do some digging around, but I found this article which I think is what these articles are referring to. Anyway, even if this is so, this is not a valid counterexample to the Theory of Relativity because a computer model or simulation cannot necessarily falsify what is in the real world. For example, if this simulation is in any way not 100% accurate to real life, then it is not necessarily a truly accurate representation of reality. Furthermore, this could be due to the fact that according to the aforementioned article, the simulation was conducted at a limited resolution of cosmic data, and thus, does not simulate small particles such as atoms and small molecules.

The article itself (or rather, what is under the "Abstract" section of the article) even states: "It yields a reasonable population of ellipticals and spirals, reproduces the observed distribution of galaxies in clusters and characteristics of hydrogen on large scales, and at the same time matches the ‘metal’ and hydrogen content of galaxies on small scales."

This means that Chaos theory (a branch of mathematics which concerns outcomes being highly sensitive to initial conditions) could explain that due to a lack of atomic simulation of this model, it necessarily means that an exact replica of our universe is not contained within that computer simulation due to it not simulating our universe exactly how it is in the real world. Therefore, this model's density of black holes per whatever unit of measure is not sufficient evidence as a counterexample of the Theory of Relativity by Einstein because that computer simulation is not more accurate than Einstein's calculations based on Relativity.

Not only that, but I fail to see where it is mentioned in the article the popularity of black holes or a citation of Einstein's calculations for it as well. So the argument does not even have substantiation either.

Einstein was an idiot

Einstein Was An Idiot. Interesting discussion. RobS^{Let's Go Brandon!} 02:36, January 16, 2022 (EST)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary.  Many topics have been discussed many, many, times.  If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''
+<big>'''For a point-by-point summary of this page, see [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]].'''</big>
+<br>
+<br>
+See also the page [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]
+<br>
+<br>
 {{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
-'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates 90/10.'''
+== Notice of Pending Revision ==
-----
+It's been over a week now since the reversion (on 9<sup>th</sup> December) of several edits I made. Despite my request, now explanation has been posted, in contrast to the explanations I gave for each of my changes. I therefore see it only fit to return the article to the state I left it in.
-== Point 4 ==
+However, to avoid 'edit wars' I think it only fair to give notification of this, to allow a final chance for justification of the reversion.
-Andy, can you clarify #4 for me?  I'm not sure I understand it. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:50, 28 November 2009 (EST)
+The specific changes are:
-:Sure, I welcome discussion of these important points.  As I've said, I have an open mind about this and if something is true, then I accept it.  But if something is false, I'll criticize it.
+*Removal of the item: ''''27. 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.'''' since it is a duplicate of ''''10. 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?''''
-:The theory of relativity has taught for decades that as the velocity of a mass increases, then its (scalar) relativistic mass increases per the Lorentzian transformation.  Now apply a force ORTHOGONAL to the velocity.  Does that force encounter the increased mass, as relativity says, or encounter the rest mass, as logic would dictate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 28 November 2009 (EST)
+*Removal of ''''26. 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. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.'''' After much discussion on this page, it seems generally agreed that there useful devices in existence. (I appreciate that some mention of GPS may be necessary, but a footnote, however valid, cannot justify the presence of the invalid section in the main article to which it is attached. GPS can have it's own separate entry on this page as a counterexample, if need be.)
-::Ah, I see what you mean.  May I suggest a re-wording?  "The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass."  I think that might be a little clearer than it is currently stated.  Your thoughts? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:06, 28 November 2009 (EST)
+[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:35, 31 December 2011 (EST)
+*Removal of ''''30. The Ehrenfest Paradox ...'''', ''''31. The Twin Paradox ...'''' and ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle...'''' since these are paradoxes and (as discussed above) are not appropriate to a page of counterexamples. These entries have already been moved to and expanded upon in the main [[Relativity]] page.
-:::Please do.  Your edits are always welcome, and you've suggested an improvement here.  Thank you for making this change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:20, 28 November 2009 (EST)
+--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:26, 17 December 2011 (EST)
-::Why would logic dictate that?  Mass is a scalar, and a force from any direction should encounter the same increased mass, not different masses from different directions.
+::I've now implemented these changes since no objection has been forthcoming to my explaination above, posted in accordance with [[Conservapedia:Editing_etiquette#Etiquette_Rule:|editting etiquette]]. If there are any objections please discuss them here rather than engaging in revert wars. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:36, 30 December 2011 (EST)
-::I suppose that under Newtonian mechanics, a moving object has a velocity of 0 within the plane perpendicular to its line of motion, and any forces operating in that plane will act on the object as if it is at rest.  But that's not what ''logic'' dictates, that's what the ''previous theory'' dictates.
+:::Sorry, just noticing these comments now.  Let's discuss before removing insights from entries.
-::Essentially your counterexample to relativity is that it makes a prediction that contradicts Newton's laws.   This is neithe r a contradiction nor a logical problem, and it is should be edited out.[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]
+:::Items 27 and 10 are similar, but not identical.  27 highlights a conflict between Relativity and basic principles of physics; item 10 emphasizes an internal contradiction in the theory that remains unanswered.
-:::No, it's a logical problem.  If you're suggesting that one force can affect the inertial in an entirely independent, orthogonal direction, that's illogical.  One thing cannot affect something else that is entirely independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:40, 12 December 2009 (EST)
+:::Item 26 remains unrebutted.  Relativity has produced nothing of value.
-:::: Why is that illogical?  What logical principle does it violate?
+:::Item 30 and 31 are logical problems which are valid counterexamples, given that Relativity claims to be based on logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 30 December 2011 (EST)
-:::: See, in relativity, orthogonal doesn't ''mean'' independent.  In relativity, velocity vectors ''do not add.''  In relativity, the effect of a new force is not independent of the object's existing momentum.  And there is nothing illogical about that; it's just a new theory that contradicts the intuition from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]
-::::: Ng, something cannot be independent (orthogonal) and yet dependent at the same time.  Unfortunately, you're arguing with your own theory at this point.  Even most relativity promoters have abandoned the position you take here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:37, 12 December 2009 (EST)
+Items 10, 27, and 31 should be taken out because they are just wrong, and make Conservapedia look lazy.  Anyone who has learned about relativity from any college-level textbook less than about 40 or 50 years old knows how to do the calculations involving relativistic velocity, momentum, force, and acceleration.  Our readers know this, and items 10 and 27 will just leave them scratching their heads about the diligence of Conservapedia.  Item 31, the "twin paradox", is also very well known.  The fact that something has the word "paradox" in its name doesn't mean that the subject is flawed.  Otherwise, we would have to take the Russel paradox too seriously, and perhaps conclude that this: "The next sentence is false.  The preceding sentence is true" means that the universe will blow up.  The phrase "twin paradox" is simply a name.  Everyone knows what is going on.  Even Einstein.  If it were actually a counterexample, this fact would be well known by now.[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 10:11, 31 December 2011 (EST)
-::::::It seems that his point is that something can be orthogonal and dependent.  I agree:  The cross-product of two vectors is orthogonal to both and yet obviously dependent on both.  --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 21:41, 12 December 2009 (EST)
+*10: ''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? '' It applies to the relativistic mass: that is observable in a [[cyclotron]]. So, it is one of those question you may speculate or philosophy all day long, but do the experiment (and the mass), and it is answered.
+*27: ''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. '' In light of the above, this seems to be wrong.
+*30: ''The Ehrenfest Paradox'' interesting paradox, solvable and no counterexample
+*31: ''The Twin Paradox'' no counterexample to relativity, it's solved in any physic's course on this subject
+*26: ''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory'' please re-read the archives, they include plenty material on the GPS (though you seem to ignore it)
-::::::: OK, good point, an orthogonal vector can be a function of other orthogonal vectors.  But that's a bit different from what we're discussing.  Here it's an orthogonal force that is not dependent on anything else, and yet Ng says it encounters relativistic mass due to a different orthogonal force.
+[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:36, 31 December 2011 (EST)
-::::::: I think relativists have abandoned Ng's position, so he's really arguing with his own side at this point.  As a result, I urge him to reconsider his views with an open mind once he confirms that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 12 December 2009 (EST)
+On the points 10 and 27 issue, whilst they may or may not be duplicates, may or may not be counterexamples, they're still just plain wrong, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of relativity. According to Special Relativity, the inertial mass of a body appears the same to all observers who are in the same inertial frame of reference (i.e. who are moving at the same velocity as each other, which may be different from that of the body being observed). If a force is applied to the body it will produce an acceleration of the same magnitude (though obviously in a different direction) regardless of the direction of the force. The force itself can in no sense be an 'observer' since it has no velocity. For observers in a different non-inertial frame, they will observe a different magnitude of acceleration, but it will still be the same regardless of the direction of the force. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:27, 31 December 2011 (EST)
-:::::: First of all, relativity has not "abandoned" the prediction we're talking about.  The velocity addition formulas for both parallel and perpendicular velocities have not changed, and they still predict that an orthogonal force will have a harder time accelerating a fast-moving object.  Physicists may have changed their informal interpretation of this formula, but not the formula itself, nor its predictions.
+I deleted #10 and #27. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:06, 1 January 2012 (EST)
-:::::: Note also that relativity's prediction can't be all that illogical, because this is what we ''actually observe happening to particles at high speeds.''  If you think that fast-moving particles commit some terrible offense against basic logic, take it up with God.
-:::::: There is a very simple way to settle this matter:  write an encyclopedia article where the material is properly sourced.  If this is indeed some counterexample or logical flaw in relativity, then one can easily find a book or paper exposing that flaw, and cite it.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 17:55:04 EST 2009
-:::::OK, I think I see part of the problem you people are having.  The word "independent" has two different meanings.  Being ''linearly'' independent is a concept from pure mathematics.  Being ''causally'' independent is an unrelated metaphysical concept.  Whether a force pushing on something causes it to move, and by how much, is completely, umm, independent of whether the vectors involved are linearly independent (orthogonal).  Please try to be very careful about the meanings of the terms.  [[User:SaraT|SaraT]] 17:00, 13 December 2009 (EST)
+[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], you've reverted an edit that everyone involved in the discussion other than yourself seems to be agreed upon. Can you please at least attempt to justify your position? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:20, 1 January 2012 (EST)
-:::::: I don't think that's the source of our confusion.  I think the main problem is that, according to Newtonian mechanics and thus according to our mechanical intuition, orthogonal things tend to operate independently.  Not only that, but a force exerted on an object is usually independent of the object's momentum.
+:''deletion of educational information is disfavored on this site; deletions restored'' How can the perpetuation of false information be educational? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:37, 1 January 2012 (EST)
-:::::: In relativity, none of these things are true, due to the fact that velocities no longer add like vectors (and thus acceleration no longer incurs a cumulative change in velocity in the usual way.)  This is seen as some sort of logical flaw or paradox simply because it contradicts the deeply ingrained intuition that came from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Sun Dec 13 18:10:46 EST 2009
-::::::: Theories that don't produce anything useful are often a waste of time, or simply false.  I realize that [[liberals]] tend to downplay accountability -- a [[Best New Conservative Words|conservative insight]], but theories should be accountable by what value they yield, particularly when taxpayer dollars are spent (wasted) on the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:55, 7 January 2010 (EST)
+This entire page is ludicrous.  If you don't believe in Einstein's relativity, then do you believe in Galilean relativity?  If Einstein's relativity is correct up to small corrections, does it invalidate cultural relativism?  Ironically, this page signifies to me that Conservapedia itself is an exercise in relative truth; the idea that individuals are entitled to make up whatever facts are consistent with their preconceptions.   [[User:Aram|Aram]] 16:26, 1 January 2012 (EST)
-:::::::: I call gps a pretty darned useful invention but it doesn't work if you don't take into account relativistic effects.  I think that not knowing where relativity is used speaks volumes as to how close minded those trying to disprove relativity, which is different from relativism.  (a point completely overlooked by the page) [[User:Gaurdro|Gaurdro]] 12:31, 24 May 2010 (EDT)
+== Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light. ==
-[[User:MLS|MLS]] 16:07, 15 August 2010 (EDT) I would argue that the nuclear bomb and atomic energy in general are pretty useful inventions. These came about once it was understood that energy and matter were manifestations of the same thing and could be interchanged. E=mc<sup>2</sup> is not just a fancy mathematical equation but a new & different way of understanding the physical universe. It took scientists about 3 years (1942 - 1945) between concept and execution (poor word choice) to develop a weapon based on this understanding that ended WW II.  MLS 15 August 2010.
+As a source for the statement [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279 this discussion] on physicsforum.org is given. Here are all the contributions to this discussion:
-== Counterexample 4 (limiting behavior) ==
+{|
+!A Dhingra
+|The moment the magnetic field is generated, it should take some time to reach some distance. It cannot reach infinity instantly, it should have some speed, and that speed cannot be more than that of light. So let’s say that the newly generated magnetic field, through a current carrying wire, travels with the speed of light. Now for the application of the faraday’s law, let’s bring a magnet near a solenoid, through which initially no current flows, and make the magnet move with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case?
-For the fourth "counterexample," the author points out that the momentum <math>p=mv\gamma</math> does not approach the momentum of light as <math>m\rightarrow 0</math> and <math>v\rightarrow c</math>
+Take another case, when instead of a magnet we have a different circuit containing a solenoid through which current flows when the switch is made on, and this circuit is held stationary moving the other one with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case? What I think is that, as the system without current is moving as fast as the magnetic field … it never gets the chance to cut the magnetic field and cause induction to occur in the solenoid. So there should be no induction. But there is relative motion between the two systems and (also there is NO time varying magnetic field through the moving solenoid,)AND no induced current will be produced ...
+so will the induction take place or not...??
-Aside from the mathematical sloppiness of taking two independent variables to a limit at the same time, at unspecified rates, these sorts of "discontinuities" can be found in just about any scientific theory.  In Newtonian mechanics, for example, take the orbit of a planet as the planet's mass goes to 0.  For any nonzero mass the orbit is an ellipse; at m=0 it is suddenly a straight line.  Is this a "counterexample" to Newton's laws?
+if induction does not take place then the principle or relativity goes wrong......
+|-
+!DaleSpam
+|You cannot make a magnet move with the speed of light. It is a physically impossible premise, so you shouldn't be surprised that assuming it leads to contradictions.
+|-
+!A Dhingra
+|... can't it be just a thought experiment like many other paradoxes available....
-Or in electronics, I=V/R.  The limiting case is no voltage, no resistance, no current; but if someone foolishly took V/R as both V and R go to zero, he would get a nonsensical answer.  Let them both go at the same rate and you get I=1.  Is this a "counterexample" to basic electronics?
+with that assumption, think about the result.......
+|-
+!DaleSpam
+|Obviously, if you violate the principle of relativity in your question then the answer must be that the principle of relativity is violated. It is just the most basic logic. Non-physical assumptions lead to non-physical conclusions. This says nothing whatsoever about physics, only about your question.
+|-
+!A Dhingra
+|ok........
+i agree that the situation is not realistic........
+but still i didn't like the fact that one should not think beyond the laws made by humans himself.......
+|-
+!DaleSpam
+|This is elementary logic. If you have any set of axioms (A) which logically imply some result (B) then if your premise is not(B) then you must logically conclude not(A). This is called transposition and is one of the fundamental rules of logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic)
-Or more to the point, momentum in Newtonian mechanics is <math>p=mv</math>, and this also fails to give the momentum of a photon at m=0, v=c.  Again, is that a "counterexample" to <math>p=mv</math>?  Will we see this entry in a corresponding page of "Counterexamples to Newton's laws?"
+SR logically implies that a solenoid must move slower than light (STL), therefore if you assume that a solenoid can move with the speed of light you must logically conclude that special relativity (SR) is violated. Written in the usual format for logic:
+(SR → STL) ↔ (~STL → ~SR)
-But none of these are counterexamples or "discontinuities":  they are just a misinterpretation of the formulas.  You don't get the momentum of a photon by taking the momentum formula for a mass and setting m=0 and v=c.  That's just not what the formula means, or what they are for.  This item should also be removed.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]] Tue Dec 15 10:16:21 EST 2009
-I agree that this point is invalid. I have personally checked that if you take a massive particle, and make its rest mass tend to zero and its speed tend to c ''while keeping its energy constant'', its four-momentum approaches that of a photon. No discontinuity at all. Since this point has been raised 8 months ago and no opposition has been heard, I will delete point 4 from the list. If anyone is interested to see the details of my calculations, let me know and I'll put them in my userspace. [[User:Toph|Toph]] 09:38, 14 August 2010 (EDT)
+Whether or not the situation is realistic and whether or not SR is a "law made by humans himself" is actually only a secondary concern. This is primarily an exercise in basic logic. Note that I am agreeing with your OP. Under the stated premise (~STL) you must indeed logically conclude that "the principle of relativity goes wrong" (~SR).
+|-
+!vector22
+|to make the experiment fair you would have to calculate what would happen to the solenoid at half light speed and then go from there.
+|-
+!netheril96
+|If you want to think beyond relativity, invent your own laws of physics. If you want to explain in terms of relativity, then think within relativity.
+|-
+!A Dhingra
+|can you help me go about finding this result......
+(considering the magnetic field to be varying with time ...... as it is getting produced ...
+|}
-:The "keeping its energy constant" is a new condition that has no clear relevance to the discontinuity.  Please explain further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 14 August 2010 (EDT)
+How does this discussion support the claim? This source seems to be unsuitable and therefore it should be deleted, and the statement marked again to be unsourced.
-== Counterexample 9 (Jesus action-at-a-distance) ==
+[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:00, 2 January 2012 (EST)
-The quoted verse doesn't strongly suggest "action-at-a-distance" in the relativistic sense.  Light could travel the distances mentioned in the passage in a fraction of a second, which is well within the precision given in the verse (an hour).  The verse and relativity are not in contradiction here.  This should be removed.
+== Previous arguments ==
-:I have an open mind about it.  In the the healing of the centurion's servant, if the Greek is translated as same "moment" then relativity is impossible, but if translated as the same "hour" then there is no conflict with relativity.
+I'm creating a page [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]], the purpose of this is to ensure that arguments are not repeated by people who find the article, not realising that their objections have already been discussed, and removed as part of a cleanup of the talkpage. The page is NOT a place to make points, but a place to see if your objection has already been made, and save everybody time by reading the responses yourself, and then bringing up the objection only if you have a new point to make. Because the numbers for counterexamples change, the page will not include the number of the counterexample, only the text of it. Although I will try to put them in order. I know that to begin with, many old arguments will not be included, but hopefully it will eventually become a very useful resource for those wishing to make contributions to the page. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:29, 4 January 2012 (EST)
-:But the healing of the centurion's servant is probably not the only place where there is [[action at a distance]] in the [[Bible]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2010 (EST)
+:  While I appreciate the positive intent behind this idea, I do fear that it risks making Conservapedia look even sillier in this area than it already does. The problem is the implicit suggestion that this new page is in any way 'definitive'. Given that the issues surrounding Einsteinian Relativity have been discussed across the planet for over a century, and that the results of those discussions are available on-line, in textbooks and elsewhere, then it is unlikely that anyone will give a page on Conservapedia very much credence, particularly if it is seen to support this page, which puts forth views that very few with an understanding of the field share.
-::Any distance on the earth is less than 20,000km. A force acting with the speed of light takes less than 1/15,000 &asymp; 0.0000667 seconds for this distance.
+:  The real problem is that the counterexamples page itself is not a genuine encyclopaedia entry, but the personal fiefdom of one contributor with little understanding of the subject matter and a bee in his bonnet about a spurious connection between Einsteinian Relativity and Moral Relativism. Unfortunately that contributor has administrator privileges, which he finds more effective in making his case than resorting to rational argument. Perhaps it would be better if the counterexamples page itself became an essay page, to make absoultely clear that it presents a personal point of view. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:06, 5 January 2012 (EST)
-::I don't think how eyewitnesses could spot such a short time...
+:: Anyone who finds Conservapedia silly because of this page will not think it is any sillier because of the new page. For many who see this page, it is a joke, and won't think any less of it because of the new page. The problem with turning this page into an essay is that those who support this page believe that it is not merely a page of personal opinion, but factually accurate. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer at the top of the page then? Something like 'this should not be seen as approving of the counterexamples, but as approval of productive discussion concerning the points'. Also, it should be noted that at the moment, every counterexample listed on the new page have outstanding objections to them, which have not been answered. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:05, 5 January 2012 (EST)
-::So, there may  probably be no other places where [[action at a distance]] is described in the [[Bible]].
+::::I hate to go raining on the parade again here, but science is argued by evidence--it is not enough to produce a counter example and highlight the "god of the gaps".  There are paradoxical observations under any established paradigm in any field.  This does not mean that the entire paradigm is incorrect, simply that there are gaps in the evidence that must be addressed in order to improve extant models.  This is the primary reason that trained scientists find this page silly.  There are tons of holes in relativity, just as there were massive holes in Darwin's original theory of natural selection (as a biologist, I am far more familiar with how the latter example has been, quite successfully, addressed), the notion that "there are some discrepancies with theory X, therefore goddidit" is an obvious logical fallacy.  Rather than poking holes in an outdated model, it is far more scientific to argue in favor of an alternate model using evidence.  The central caveat here, and one that must be carefully beaten out of every experiment, is that evidence cannot be approached with the intention of supporting a particular hypothesis--a model must be built around the evidence, not the other way around.  That's why scientists laugh at the term "creation science", science is not about hunting for evidence in support of a pre-formed theory, it is about impartially collecting evidence and then letting said evidence speak for itself.
-::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:17, 5 January 2010 (EST)
+::::Having said that.  I must acknowledge that this article is not explicitly (although, it is implied) about advancing one viewpoint over another--it is simply about highlighting perceived inconsistencies in the theory of relativity.  By itself, that is not a ridiculous premise at all.  However, because this page is more of an editorial than an academic encyclopedia article, this page itself probably should have been classified as an "essay" to begin with. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 14:13, 6 January 2012 (EST)
-:::You make an interesting point, Frank.  But according to this site, it takes 1/7.4 seconds for light to circle the globe, which is much longer than your figure.[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_times_does_light_go_around_the_Earth_in_one_second]  More generally and more importantly, there is the issue of how this action in the Bible ''isn't'' light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)
+::::: In my opinion, the article is really a list of anomalies and paradoxes, not counterexamples. The anomalies are observations that need some additional explanation, and that may or may not require an adjustment to relativity. The paradoxes seem like contradictions or contrary to common sense, but have explanations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:58, 7 January 2012 (EST)
-::::Indeed, an error in my calculation: 20,000,000m / 300,000,000 m/sec = 1/15 seconds.
+:::::: If someone thinks that Relativity '''''must''''' be true as a matter of logic, then any and all evidence to the contrary is not going to change that view.  "Paradox" might be an appropriate term for ostensible contradictions in logic.  But the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 7 January 2012 (EST)
-::::Fast enough, still.
-::::Whether the action in the Bible ''isn't'' light doesn't matter: it is indistinguishable from an action happening at the speed of light for the witnesses of the time, so it doesn't say anything about the validity of the theory of relativity...
-::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 19:46, 5 January 2010 (EST)
-:::::Frank you make an interesting point, and I have an open mind about it.  But I'm not entirely convinced.  When the woman cured herself of bleeding and Jesus felt power leaving him, that sounds more like heat than light.  And for heat to travel virtually instantaneously (or at the speed of light) WOULD violate the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 5 January 2010 (EST)
+::::::: No, it is the term "true as a matter of logic" that is not suitable for observable science. Perhaps your real complaint is with those who push scientific statements as being true as a matter of logic. If so, I suggest renaming the article to "Counterexamples to Einsteinian thinking". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:09, 8 January 2012 (EST)
-::::::Yes, it would.  And it would also violate classical physics, the laws of thermodynamics etc.
+:::::::: I think at least one major college teaches Relativity as a course in the math department rather than being listed primarily in the physics department.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 8 January 2012 (EST)
-::::::But of course a miracle is going to violate the laws of physics.  I don't see how this can be cited to discredit one physical theory over another.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]
+:::::: If the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science, what are they doing on this page? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 17:26, 8 January 2012 (EST)
-I have to respectfully disagree with you on that point, Andy - I'm not sure this action could comment on relativity any more than the sun stopping for Joshua could comment on the Copernican model of the solar system.  If God wanted heat/light to travel at some finite speed except in certain instances, how is that different from the sun and moon moving in the sky, except in certain instances? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:32, 5 January 2010 (EST)
+::::::::Strictly speaking, all sciences are "observational" sciences; the semantic distinction between observational science and experimental science is arbitrary at best.  Even in a tightly-controlled experiment, the goal is still to ''observe'' the outcome of the experiment in order to make some inference about the processes involved.  In other words, an experiment is intended as nothing more than an indirect observation of natural phenomena that are not readily directly observable.
-: I have an open mind about this.  You make good points, Jacob.  But your analogy is not perfect because:
+::::::::A "paradox", by the most reductive definition, is when the available evidence suggests two contradictory hypotheses.  Whereas an "anomaly" is an observation that does not conform to the hypothesis suggested by the previously available evidence.  Both of these terms are quite appropriate to use in any scientific or logical context.  When a scientist encounters a paradox or an anomaly, it implies that there is a fundamental gap in the theoretical understanding of his or her field.  Seeking out evidence to address these gaps allows for scientists to adjust their theoretical models in order to more precisely explain the observed phenomena. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)
-*the Joshua account might be understood as the ''perception'' of the army that they sun did not set until they completed their job, but the healing in the [[New Testament]] cannot be explained as mere perception
+RudrickBoucher, since we already established that you are not a biologist, shouldn't you say "as someone who likes to pretend to be a biologist".  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 8 January 2012 (EST)
-*if the Joshua account is taken absolutely literally, Newtonian mechanics does not say it is impossible, while relativity does say [[action-at-a-distance]] is impossible
-I look forward to our translation work on the Joshua passage (and New Testament passages) to see if that brings forth insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)
+:::::::::Conservative, I have a BS in cell and molecular biology (CMB) from the top undergraduate CMB program in the country, several years of laboratory experience doing developmental biology research, just as many publications (a couple of which, I first-authored), I also have teaching experience in introductory biology (AP biology and college-level intro bio), graduate level course-work in developmental biology, and, as of this coming fall, I will either be a first-year medical student or a developmental biology PhD candidate (I've been accepted into programs for both, but not a combined MD/PhD program just yet).  In short, I am allowed to call myself a "biologist" because it is my profession--it may sound pretentious, but it saves on typing. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)
-:Your second point is a good one, and I suppose my example wasn't very good.  But on a different note, what makes you say that the Joshua account might be understood as only a perception of the army?  I think I'm going to go translate that chapeter, I'll be interested to see what Hebrew words are used for that bit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:49, 5 January 2010 (EST)
+RudrichBoucher, a profession is something one does to earn money and have a net positive cash flow, while students often invest money in education and often have low earnings or debt accumulation. Perhaps you should consider taking an introductory course in finance so you better understand the concepts of cash flow and investment! :) I would also suggest taking a course in ethics at a Christian university so you no longer claim to be a biologist and then retract that claim like you did at this wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 8 January 2012 (EST)
+::::::::::::I was paid for my research and for the teaching.  Although, admittedly, not very well for either (as neither science nor teaching pays particularly well).  I retracted the claim on the "15 questions" essay only after you had already edited it--in the name of diplomatically avoiding a pointless edit war.  Similarly, I referenced my biological inclination above as a gesture of humility, to admit that my background in physics is relatively limited.  On that note, what are your credentials?  Have you spent seven years meticulously learning a specific field like I have?  Have you published any papers?  Are you a member of any professional research societies?  Admittedly, I have at least another six years of education to go, but I can legitimately claim some level of expertise in my field.  I don't say these things to brag, say them to lend credibility to my arguments.  Finally, as I've mentioned before, I was raised Catholic and I spent my first two years of college at a Methodist school--where I did have the privilege of taking an ethics class (and I very much enjoyed it).  So please, let's cut the ad hominem attacks and focus on the discussion at hand. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:44, 8 January 2012 (EST)
-::Shall we look at it next?  Joshua 10:11-14, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:18, 5 January 2010 (EST)
-IMO, the discussion is a little bit bizarre: Following [[David Hume]]'s definition of a [[miracle]] as a "a violation of the laws of nature", for evaluating the ''laws of natures'', miracles can't be taken into account.
+::::::: Of those who credit Einstein for relativity, they often argue that Einstein's approach was superior because he ignored observations and presented relativity as being something that must be true as a matter of logic. The Einstein scholars acknowledge that Lorentz and Poincare had all the relativity formulas before Einstein, but Lorentz and Poincare were not true believers because they conceded that the theory could be disproved by experiment.
+::::::: So the case could be made that there is an Einsteinian-relativity-philosophy that is a is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions, that is based on postulates taken on faith, and that ignores experimental evidence. If so, then maybe the page should be explicit about what is being attacked. All real science is based on experimental evidence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)
-As I said earlier: we shouldn't try to restrict God with the laws of our logic - or even physics.
+:::::::::RSchlafly, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that even Einstein considered relativity to be a mathematical approximation.  One that precisely, but still somewhat inaccurately, explained the then-available evidence; in a manner similar to the proverbial physicist who, for ease of calculation, treats a horse as a circle.  Anybody who has taken more than a year of calculus-based physics (or, even introductory college astronomy), knows the very real limitations of relativity.  If anything, these limitations are just as dogmatic as relativity itself.  Therefore, the notion that questioning relativity is taboo in intellectual circles (an underlying premise of this page) is patently ridiculous.  Poking holes in relativity, and then seeking to explain them, has been one of the great ongoing projects in physics for the past seventy years. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)
-[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)
+:::::::::: I agree that questioning relativity is not taboo. The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics was for observations that caused a modification of general relativity. The biggest physics story of the year was the Italian claim that neutrinos go faster than light, contrary to relativity. Physicists often talk about replacing relativity with some unified field theory or quantum theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:51, 9 January 2012 (EST)
-:Frank, perhaps what you mean is that you don't want the logic of the Bible to be used to evaluate claims by scientists.  If so, I completely disagree.  And so would [[Isaac Newton]] and most great scientists.
+:::::::::::: That makes me wonder why there isn't a "Counterexamples to Quantum Mechanics" page here as well. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:11, 9 January 2012 (EST)
-:As our [[Conservative Bible Translation]] project is revealing, Jesus said his works were not miracles, but signs.  So any definition of miracle by Hume (who, by the way, leaned toward atheistic rather than Christianity) is not terribly helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)
+:::::::::::: There are a lot of anomalies and paradoxes in quantum mechanics also. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)
-::So, what's the definition of a ''sign'', then? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:06, 6 January 2010 (EST)
+== A few more things ==
-:::The same as its name suggests:  a disclosure of reality, rather than a violation of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:35, 6 January 2010 (EST)
+All right, more problems with this article:
+<blockquote>
+. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
+<br />18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
+<br />24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
+</blockquote>
+: General relativity ''does not predict gravitons!'' Gravitons are massless spin-two particles predicted by QFT that lead to linear GR. (Though the spirit is different; in QFT, the h's--the metric perturbations--are a tensor representing field strength on a background Minkowski spacetime. In GR these represent curvature in spacetime.)
+<br />18: Untrue--Consider the Dirac equation. It predicted spin, which was not predicted by Schrodinger theory. It also predicted negative energy states (antiparticles), and QFT has been fundamental to particle physics.
+<br />24: Yet another horrible misunderstanding. Consider an ideal gas with N particles. Assume the total number of particles is conserved (it obviously doesn't have to be, but this is an idealized case). First of all, Newtonian gravity also predicts that a star will contract to a point without hydrostatic pressure--due to their mutual gravitational attraction. Should we start a "counterexamples to gravity" page? You've forgotten one thing: ''there's a term in the expression for the entropy that involves thermal energy!!!'' In other words (roughly speaking) the gas "warms up" so that the second law of thermodynamics is not violated. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:43, 8 January 2012 (EST)
-::::*I took Hume's definition as I found it on conservapedia's page on [[miracle]]s.
+::Very well said!  While I'm in a commenting-frenzy, I'd like to add to your points.
-::::*The page on [[sign]]s doesn't describe Jesu works - perhaps you can fix this
-::::*If you don't like Hume, what's about [[Thomas Aquinas]]:
-:::::''Now, there are various degrees and orders of these miracles. Indeed, the highest rank among miracles is held by those events in which something is done by God which nature never could do. For example, that two bodies should be coincident; that the sun reverse its course, or stand still; that the sea open up and offer a way through which people may pass. And even among these an order may be observed. For the greater the things that God does are, and the more they are removed from the capacity of nature, the greater the miracle is. Thus, it is more miraculous for the sun to reverse its course than for the sea to be divided.
+::'''Re: #15.'''  It's not a waste of time or money to reject a hypothesis.  To quote Enrico Fermi, "If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement.  If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery."
-:::::''Then, the second degree among miracles is held by those events in which God does something which nature can do, but not in this order. It is a work of nature for an animal to live, to see, and to walk; but for it to live after death, to see after becoming blind, to walk after paralysis of the limbs, this nature cannot do—but God at times does such works miraculously. Even among this degree of miracles a gradation is evident, according as what is done is more removed from the capacity of nature.
+::'''Re: #18.'''  Relativity HAS led to other [http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/relativity/discoveries-relativity-made-possible.htm|insights].
-:::::''Now, the third degree of miracles occurs when God does what is usually done by the working of nature, but without the operation of the principles of nature. For example, a person may be cured by divine power from a fever which could be cured naturally, and it may rain independently of the working of the principles of nature.
+::'''Re: #24.'''  The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems.  In the case of stellar black hole formation, gravitational pressure must exceed the sum of the thermal pressure, supplied by ongoing fusion in the stellar core, and the core degeneracy pressure, provided courtesy of the Pauli exclusion principle.  Achieving this condition is, necessarily, a very violent event, complete with giant explosions, gamma ray bursts, and spewing jets of super-heated gas.  When considering the entirety of the system giving rise to a black hole, and not just the resulting black hole itself, entropy certainly ''does'' increase. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)
-::::*Acts 2:43 ''Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles'' (KJB) So, we have ''miraculous signs'' and ''wonders''
+:::Hello! Thanks for the comments.  And sorry about #24, like I said, the model I gave is slightly idealized b/c I haven't studied the subject in detail. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 07:58, 9 January 2012 (EST)
-::::*John 2:11 ''This was the first of the miracles Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and by doing showed his glory, and so his disciples believed in him. '' (CBP) ''Changing water into wine'' is something nature never could do: it's an outright miracle, miraculous sign, whatever...
+:::::No problem, I was in a bit of a commenting frenzy anyway.  I'm guessing, because you referred to the ideal gas law, that you have some chemistry background?
-::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 6 January 2010 (EST)
+:::::Also, I've had students throw the second law of thermodynamics at me when I'm trying to explain evolution.  The Earth's surface isn't a closed system either because it's constantly receiving energy from the sun--so the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable there as well.  The only truly closed system that I can think of is in Washington...and, yes, entropy there is ''always'' increasing! --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)
-:::::That's great recitation, Frank, but how about simply applying logic yourself?  You're a bright guy, why simply hunt and repeat quotes from others?  On this site we encourage ''thinking'' in a logical way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:21, 6 January 2010 (EST)
+::::::Actually, I'm terrible at chemistry! My background is in physics and math. You talk about ideal gasses in any physics class where you discuss thermodynamics. But yeah, that's one of the classical misunderstandings among creationists. One thing I saw suggested that next time someone brings it up, ask them about the other laws of thermodynamics. What I also like about the second law of thermodynamics argument is that they don't seem to understand what entropy ''is'' and ''why'' it increases. So yeah, next time someone brings it up ask them about those things. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:18, 9 January 2012 (EST)
-::::::I'm trying to use the fact that I'm standing on the shoulder of giants... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:23, 6 January 2010 (EST)
+:::::::Can I please delete these "counterexamples"? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:32, 12 January 2012 (EST)
-:::::::How about using "the fact" of simple logic and the power of your ''own'' mind?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)
+::::::::I say go for it.  You've justified why they should be deleted and your justification has met with no objection.  If somebody wishes to restore them, they are welcome to object here.
-::::::::To make it as clear as possible in my own words:
+::::::::As an aside, there does seem to be a disproportionate number of math and physics types on here.  It is interesting how the life sciences tend to be predominantly liberal, whereas there's a more even distribution of political ideology in the physical sciences.  There are conservative biologists (my old PI, for example), but they are very few and very far between.  Knowledge of evolution does not seem to be a factor here, because understanding / acceptance of evolution is nearly universal in all of the sciences.  In biology, there is a (seemingly true, in my experience) stereotypical "personality" in each of the sub-disciplines; to reference other fields, the age-old dichotomy between chemists and chemical engineers seems to mostly hold true.  I have always wondered if the "personality" of the fields would lead to the observed political differences, or if maybe there is something deeper.
-::::::::*I won't restrict God by laws which men made or observed. Can I understand God's ways? Can I expect God to act the way I think to be logical? That would be [[hubris]].
-::::::::*Testing scientific hypotheses using God's miracles or signs seems to be odd!
-::::::::But which part of Thomas Aquinas's definition of miraculous events didn't you like? Granted, he had a slightly other view of the ''capacity of nature'' than we have today, but his line of reasoning was as valid in the 15th century as it is today! I hoped that his definition would be more ''helpful'' than that of David Hume.
-::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:41, 6 January 2010 (EST)
+::::::::Because I am afraid that my above observation may be taken grossly out of context, I must add to it the disclaimer that I am not in any way suggesting "indoctrination" of students in one field versus another (or making some other similarly fatuous insinuation).  I am simply making an observation, and speculating on its possible cause. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:25, 12 January 2012 (EST)
-A miraculous healing seems to violate the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] - whether it happens on a distance or not. Does this mean that [[John 4:46-54]] is a counterexample to the laws of thermodynamics, too?
+These counterexamples are not adequately rebutted above:
-[[User:PhilG|PhilG]] 09:58, 2 February 2010 (EST)
-: How so?  Do you think eating an apple to feel better, or taking an aspirin to alleviate a headache, also violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 2 February 2010 (EST)
+. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
-:: No.  Eating an Apple helps you by giving your body some of the chemical components that constitute the apple.  Components which also happen to help you fight off viruses and the like.  The same is true for the aspirin.  Both are well defined chemical processes that involve no increase or decrease in the amount of matter or energy in the system.  Healing (such as Jesus mending the ear of the soldier), would involve the rapid solidification of matter that was not there before (ie. the new ear).  This is a clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics.  The point is,if you're going to use miracles or signs to disprove a physical theory, you have to apply the argument to universally.  But you don't because attacking the Second Law of Thermodynamics would knock the crutch of misinterpreted Newtonian Physics you have been leaning on out from underneath you.
+:If Relativists are not even going to accept the results of experiments that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then they '''''are''''' a waste of money.
-::[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 3:32 9 August 2010 (EST)
-Following was taken from Schlafly user page and put here, where it should have been (my apologies)
+. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
-(This is my first edit ever on a wiki/conseri board, so you'll have to excuse me if I did it incorrectly)
+:If you can give examples in your own words, then please do.
-I have a concern with your post of "Counterexamples of Relativity" Your argument labeled 9:
+. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
-The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54.
+:This statement is true also.  The dramatic decrease in entropy predicted by Relativity is contrary to the Second Law.  No known mechanism offsets that decrease.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 12 January 2012 (EST)
-It is not a counter example of relativity. The concept that the theory is broken down because Jesus is able to break it does not apply. Jesus worked miracles. So does God. Because of this, they are able to break laws and/or theories of physics. I haven't taken the time to go over the rest of the points in your counterexamples, but that one definitely doesn't work. If you are going to argue against me, then you are arguing against the Bible. Jesus broke several laws of physics. The biggest example is when he walked on water. Physics would state that by buoyancy laws he would not be able to do this. Does this call into question the physics buoyancy? It definitely does not.--mvgilpatrick 10 August 2010 (CDT)
+:::'''re: 15.''' The existence of gravitons was hypothesized in an attempt to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics.  General relativity, by itself, does not predict the existence of gravitons.  Furthermore, money spent testing a hypothesis that is ultimately not supported is not "wasted" (otherwise, I'd be out of a job)--the knowledge gained in testing the hypothesis allows a better hypothesis to be formulated.
-:Relativity says that action-at-a-distance is impossible. That's not true of other examples. No physical law, for example, proves that rising from the dead is impossible.--Andy Schlafly 13:40, 12 August 2010 (EDT)
+:::'''re: 18.''' General relativity correctly predicted gravitational lensing, the existence of black holes, and the accelerating expansion of the universe.  Additionally (and this is the first example that I can come up with off of the top of my head, RSchlafly probably knows a few better ones), relativistic effects must be compensated for to maximize the accuracy of satellite-based GPS systems.
-::Wouldn't the physical law of gravity and buoyancy make walking on water "impossible"? The only way Jesus could have done it would to have either had some sort of special technology that hadn't been invented yet, or, he is God and can break the laws of gravity and therefore physics (you know, do the "impossible"). Why can he break this law, but not break the theory of relativity? Please address this specific example.
+:::'''re: 24.''' Black hole formation results in a net increase in entropy when considering the system as a whole.  If you were to consider just the mass of the resultant black hole as a closed system, the degeneracy forces outweigh the net gravitational force significantly enough to prevent collapse into a schwarzschild radius.  In just overcoming this by itself (as theoretically happens in super-massive black holes), there would be a massive output of emitted particles (radiation), which would still result in a net increase in the entropy of the system.
-::I can add another example. What about the law of mass conservation? Mass can not be created or destroyed. This is a law, and it is taught as a matter of fact that it is impossible to do otherwise. In Matthew 14:13-21, Jesus was able to feed 5,000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish. He created mass (lots of food) out of very little (small amount of food). He broke another law of physics. He did the impossible. Again I say, is it not possible for him to break the theory of relativity, whilst still leaving it intact?
+:::These counterexamples are not valid.  Plain and simple. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 01:10, 13 January 2012 (EST)
-::Also please note that I am arguing for Jesus being God, not against, so please do not mistake that. --mvgilpatrick 17:50, 12 August 2010 (CDT)
+:::: General relativity did not predict the accelerating expansion of the universe. It predicted that the expansion would be slowing. Most physicists say that the GR equations must be modified to accommodate the accelerating expansion.
+:::: I don't get the entropy argument. I always assumed that a black hole would have all the entropy of the collapsing star and matter falling in. Is there a source for saying that black holes have low entropy? As the footnote says, Hawking has an explanation. Is there something wrong with that explanation? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:29, 13 January 2012 (EST)
-::: No, I don't think all these examples are the same.  Physics does ''not'' categorically state that it is impossible for a creature to walk on water.  Physics does ''not'' say that replication is impossible.  There is no reason to think the multiplication of the loaves generated mass from nothing, rather than using existing mass to replicate.  But Relativity does insist that action-at-a-distance is impossible.
+:::::Um...I ''did'' address all your concerns, Andy....
-::: Nothing described in the Bible violates physics.  Newton used the Bible to guide him to the truth for that reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:36, 12 August 2010 (EDT)
+<blockquote>
+These counterexamples are not adequately rebutted above:
-::::Wait a second here.  Maybe I am misunderstanding something, but doesn't the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy require that any matter or energy come from somewhere?  Also, physics does not categorically state that beings can't walk on water, it does categorically state that under Earth's gravity and given the observed buoyancy / surface tension of water, a being walking on water must either be light enough or have a large enough surface area not to float.  Sure, Jesus could have taken energy from somewhere to make the extra loaves and fishes.  He also could have changed the local buoyancy or surface tension of water around him in order to walk on it.  But, if that was the case, isn't it just as likely that the healing was done with a speed of light delay?--[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 14:28, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
+. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
-::::: You are "misunderstanding something" ... because you're not looking at what the [[Bible]] says.  Which, of course, is the effect that the falsehoods of Relativity have on lots of people who thereafter read anything and everything except the Bible itself.  The Bible says the healing was instantaneous.  Indeed, that's a key point of the miracle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:39, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
+:If Relativists are not even going to accept the results of experiments that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then they '''''are''''' a waste of money. '''Wait, gravitons are predicted by GR?! Please send me a link to the derivation!!!'''
-:::::: But it ''doesn't'' say that it was instantaneous.  According to your own translation, "So he asked them the exact hour when he began to feel better, and they told him, 'His fever broke yesterday, at about one pm.'".  According to the Douay-Rheims, "He asked therefore of them the hour wherein he grew better. And they said to him: 'Yesterday, at the seventh hour, the fever left him.'"  Neither indicates an instant healing, as a half hour is ''way'' too long to tell the difference between an instant healing and a healing with a speed-of-light delay.--[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 15:03, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
+. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
-::::::: Subsequently the phrase is "exact hour" (which should probably be translated as "exact time" or "exact moment" per the comment section).  So thanks for your point because it illustrates the weakness in translation.  The instantaneous healing is central to the purpose of the event.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:25, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
+:If you can give examples in your own words, then please do. '''I did!!!! Not to be rude, but did you see what I wrote above? Dirac equation! Spin! Antiparticles! Quantum Field theory! Particle physics! The Standard Model!'''
-:::::::: The phrase "exact hour" was in the question, but the word "about" was in the answer, negating the "exact hour" phrase.  Besides, wasn't the central purpose of the event to demonstrate how faith can save you?  Being instantaneous hardly seems to be required for that, especially when the difference was unmeasurable with the technology of the day, and irrelevant (Jesus said that the girl would be healed, and she was).  And yes, I know I'm approaching 90/10 with this edit.--[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 15:35, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
+. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
-::::::::: Freiberg, it is a is a translation error that has led to your problem, as Mr. Schlafly pointed out. Furthermore, the story does not only demonstrate that faith can heal you, but demonstrates that faith can heal you instantaneously. Faith doesn't take 10 years, 5 years, or 1/1000000th of a second to heal someone; the cure can be instantaneous, as demonstrated in this story. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 18:19, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
+:This statement is true also.  The dramatic decrease in entropy predicted by Relativity is contrary to the Second Law.  No known mechanism offsets that decrease '''Yes, yes, yes, temperature increase is unknown to physics!'''
+</blockquote>
-::::::::: Freiberg, if you read the [[Bible]] passage in earnest, then why do you describe the healed person as a "girl" rather than a "boy"?  See [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_4]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:55, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
+:::::(Again I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just wondering if there was a glitch or something b/c, as I said, these were all addressed above.) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:48, 13 January 2012 (EST)
-::::::::::''<sup>52</sup>When he inquired as to the time when his son got better, they said to him, "The fever left him yesterday at the seventh hour."
+The footnote for #8 says that the calculations are "complicated or contrived", and that the fundamental formula was "conformed" to match the observed perihelion precession.  No one doubts that the derivation is complicated.  But "conformed" seems to say that something was "tweaked" to match the precession.  The formula is complicated to solve but simple to write: <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>.  There's nothing in it that can be "tweaked"--not 8, not pi, and not K (Newton's constant of gravitation.)[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:08, 21 January 2012 (EST)
+:Yep, this is also confusing to me. Does Andy Schlafly know relativity? As you said, nothing can be tweaked in that equation (to "conform" to whatever events). The tensor that represents curvature has to have divergence 0, so that energy-momentum is locally conserved, and the 8*pi*G is determined from the fact that it has to reduce to Newtonian gravity in the weak-field limit. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:47, 23 January 2012 (EST)
-::::::::::''<sup>53</sup>Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, "Your son will live." So he and all his household believed.
+== Recent reversion ==
-::::::::::Which ''seventh hour'' are we talking about? The one in Capernaum - or the one in Cana? There is a difference of roughly 1 minute... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:04, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
+[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], while your recent change did keep the link to the rebuttal page, don't you think it would only be fair to also keep the note that the page is controversial? Regardless who is actually right or wrong, I don't think it would be fair to anyone reading 'The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia' for them to pick up the impression that the ideas on this page are not very widely disputed. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 16:05, 29 January 2012 (EST)
-:::::::::::Wait... The exact same time that Jesus said "Your son will live"? A spoken sentence isn't a point in time, it's a period of time. Maybe he healed him during "your" and the family saw the kid recover during "son"? The Bible doesn't refer to an exact point in time during the sentence so maybe the miracle itself was spread gradually throughout the sentence? I mean, if you're going to use this as a direct example of action at a distance then it really shouldn't be a matter of interpretation. [[User:Stoob|Stoob]]
+: The whole article is a list of relativity controversies. It says at the top that it is contrary to what liberals promote. Isn't that clear? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:04, 29 January 2012 (EST)
+:: The point is, I think, that the very idea that there is a liberal/conservative division on this is itself controversial. Personally, I have not seen the issue raised anywhere except on Conservapedia, and even then only by a very small subset of contributors.
+:: On a broader point, if opposing liberal points of view is, by definition, controversial, and given that such opposition is the ''raison d'être'' of Conservapedia, wouldn't a better tagline be "The Controversial Encyclopaedia"?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)
-== lack of a single useful device ==
+: It's a common tactic for the media to label someone they don't like as "controversial".  But does anyone ever hear a liberal theory or politician called "controversial"?  Was [[Ted Kennedy]] ever called "controversial" by the media?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 29 January 2012 (EST)
-At conservapedia's article on the [[Global Positioning System]], one can read:
+::Does this make [[string theory]] conservative, as it is often labeled ''controversial''? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
-''These receivers rely on precisely timing signals sent from GPS satellites, with corrections for atmospheric attenuation and relativistic effects.''
+:::No, I didn't suggest that ''everything'' the media disparages as "controversial" is conservative.  String theory is a challenge to liberal orthodoxy from the Left.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:18, 30 January 2012 (EST)
+::::Just to nail this down [[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], do you or do you not think that this page is controversial?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:09, 30 January 2012 (EST)
+::::Also, your question about Ted Kennedy looks rhetorical with the implied answer of 'no', and yet the answer is very clearly 'yes'. Googling "Ted Kennedy" and "controversial" gives 6.4 million hits. Obviously that doesn't mean the term is being applied to him in all cases, but in many of them (e.g. http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/us/2009/08/26/ted-kennedy-controversy#slide=1) it clearly is. Can you clarify the point you were making about him?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 08:27, 30 January 2012 (EST)
-GPS seems to be a useful device!
+::: The term "controversial" is not a good term for [[string theory]]. The major aspects are not disputed. A subject is not conservative just because some journalist mislabels it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:14, 31 January 2012 (EST)
-[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 6 January 2010 (EST)
+::::::That's the problem with science journalism these days.  It overstates the implications of a lot of findings, oversimplifies key concepts, and often fails to accurately convey consensus opinions in a particular field. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 17:35, 31 January 2012 (EST)
+:::::::Just wanted to add to this: I have never seen GR disputed anywhere but here. (Save for quantum gravity, of course). [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:28, 2 February 2012 (EST)
-:Great catch of a misleading statement, Frank!  I've corrected it.
+== Neutrinos do not travel faster than light ==
+The same lab that originally broke the story has confirmed a flaw in their experiment. Dr. Sandro Centro stated, ''"In fact I was a little sceptical since the beginning, now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos.[...]I think they were a little bit in a hurry to publish something that was astonishing, and at the end of the day it was a wrong measurement."[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682]
-:Our [[theory of relativity]] entry explains how it did not aid the development of [[GPS]].  The repeated attempt by relativists to falsely claim credit for [[GPS]] ''reinforces'' the lack of any legitimate contributions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 6 January 2010 (EST)
+: I hope he did not mean to say that, because neutrinos going at the speed of light would still contradict relativity (or other experiments). Neutrinos have mass, and must go slower than the speed of light. The article has a better statement: "they find that the neutrinos do travel at the same speed as light, within a small error range." [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:02, 17 March 2012 (EDT)
-::Well, you are consistent! Just another question: What's about [[particle accelerator]]s? Generally, the theory of relativity is used to explain why it takes more energy to accelerate an electron from 200,000,000 m/sec to 200,002,000 m/sec than from 2,000 m/sec to 4,000 m/sec.
+I took the part out - again: have a look at the [http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html updated press-release] by CERN regarding the experiment:
+[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:48, 17 March 2012 (EDT)
-::Have you thought about an explanation for this phenomenon?
+:The updates and corrections for the benefit of Relativists are less than persuasive.  Is anyone claiming quote above ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is inaccurate?  Note, by the way, that the CERN experiment is not the only one that suggested neutrinos can travel at least as fast as the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:57, 17 March 2012 (EDT)
+::Andy, perhaps you could write to either the ICARUS Collaboration or CERN seeking clarification of their results. After reading the actual paper[http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.3433.pdf](not the press release), it seems that the team is quite confident that their latest results are in complete agreement with Relativity. "''Based on seven neutrino events, our result is in excellent agreement with Lorentz dependent velocities of neutrinos and of light. Neutrinos and GPS measurements are found to be sharply coincident in time within an uncertainty of a few nanoseconds, in disagreement with the superluminal result reported by the OPERA Collaboration.''" Yet you contend that the results from the very same experiment actually ''disproves'' Relativity. In this instance I simply think you are wrong. But who's to say that my interpretation of an article is any more accurate than yours? Obviously, we both can't be right. I think there must be a better way to settle this matter than combing through press releases. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 13:33, 17 March 2012 (EDT)
-::Accelerators have applications beyond basic research!
+:::The new, updated claims seem more like [[political correctness]] than real science.  Does the paper compare the updated results to the independent prior findings, by another experiment, that also suggested that neutrino speeds conflict with the politicized desires of Relativists?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:55, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
-::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:02, 6 January 2010 (EST)
+::::Political correctness? Come off it Schlafly. You do realize that there's far more fame and glory to be had for a physicist to prove GR wrong than there is to add to the growing list of supporting evidence? You do understand that, right? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 01:57, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
-:::Frank, I have an open mind about this, but I'm not aware of a single benefit from what you describe, nor do you identify one.  Do you have an open mind about this?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)
+:::::The opposite is obviously true.  Those who even question the [[Theory of Relativity]] are risking their careers.  No grad student can expect to receive a doctorate if he questions relativity; no associate professor can expect to receive tenure if he does likewise; and no tenured professor will ever win the [[Nobel Prize]] for questioning relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:31, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
-::::*Synchrotron radiation is [http://www.physik.uni-kiel.de/kfs/Anwendung/medicine.php used in medicine]
+:::::: Yep, and no one will ever win a Nobel prize for questioning whether the Earth is round either. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 18:29, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
-::::*So, may I ask again:  what your explanation for the phenomenon? I suppose you are aware of the phenomenon I described above?
-::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:47, 6 January 2010 (EST)
-:::::Frank, inventors and doctors and engineers don't typically even bother learning relativity.  Should I repeat that?  Complain to engineering departments and medical schools if you think that should change.  Nothing useful has even been designed or built using relativity.  If you want to look and look and look for a counterexample then you'll be wasting your time.  I'm not going to waste mine.  This is my final reply on this topic for now.  Do something logical, such as editing the Bible, and after benefiting from that experience we can revisit this issue in a month or so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:52, 6 January 2010 (EST)
+::::::: There aren't 39 counterexamples to the spherical shape of the Earth.  But if a doctoral candidate, tenure-track professor, or [[Nobel Prize]] wannabe repeats one of the 39 [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], then he's risking retaliation against his career by liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:52, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
-::::::Why does it matter whether the users of the invention learn relativity?  Most users of microwaves never learn Maxwell's equations either.  That doesn't mean that the laws are irrelevant to the gadget's operation.
+:::::::: There aren't 39 counterexamples to relativity and [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity|this page]] documents in detail what's wrong with each alleged "counterexample". The acceptance of relativity has to do with the theory passing extensive experimental scrutiny and nothing to do with "liberals". --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 19:29, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
-::::::Likewise, the engineers who correct the clocks of GPS satellites may not know or care that relativistic effects are behind the clock skew.  But that dodges the point that relativistic effects are real, observable, and must be corrected for in several useful inventions.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]
+Aschlafly said: "''No grad student can expect to receive a doctorate if he questions relativity[...]''" Yes. If a doctoral candidate whipped out almost any of your "counterexamples", in anything short of a joking fashion, they most likely would be signaling the end of their academic carrier. Why? It's simple. Advanced degrees are awarded to students who have shown a mastery of their particular field of study. Presenting this list of counterexamples in a doctoral thesis would only go towards illustrating that the student does not have a thorough understanding of SR or GR and thus should not offered a degree. No political correctness. No liberal conspiracy.
+<br />Aschlafly went on to say: "''...no tenured professor will ever win the [[Nobel Prize]] for questioning relativity.''" You are 100% correct on this one. Why? Because anybody can sit around questioning anything. It doesn't take any particular knowledge, skill, education, or keen intellect to lob endless unanswerable questions. Otherwise Glenn Beck would have won the Nobel (and every other prize) by now. No, the proverbial (and many times literal) money is in ''answering'' questions. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 14:09, 21 March 2012 (EDT)
-:::::::Here's a good source: [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf | US Navy].  As for engineers not bothering to learn relativity, I think that's a mite off the mark.  I'm an engineer and I had to take a class dealing with the basics of SR, and I'm just an electrical engineer.  Aerospace engineers certainly deal with relativity a great deal, as do nuclear engineers. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 00:26, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
+''Italic text''== GPS and Relativity ==
-:::::::Bah...  My engineering professor worked at a synchrotron at Brookhaven National Laboratory.  He was in charge of a beam line for the Naval Research Laboratory.  They are actually very interesting devices in that they really help with all fields of science and even fields outside of it.  My one friend conducted some research with a synchrotron when doing research with fuel cells.  My engineering professor studied magnetic materials with a synchrotron.  Every once in a while you also find stories like this http://news.discovery.com/human/brain-human-ancestor-skull.html which actually wouldn't have been possible without the synchrotron.  I'm only just scratching the surface of how useful they are.  Would you like some more information?  [[User:AdamYak|AdamYak]] 14:35, 10 August 2010 (EDT)
+I'm in the process of getting a debate under way on 'GPS and Relativity' over at [[Talk:Theory of relativity]]. A this stage I would rather just have some references, especially any which show that Relativity is not used in the GPS system. Once we have some good references to look at, possibly in a week or two, we can then consider the evidence. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 08:59, 7 April 2012 (EDT)
-::::::::Yes, I would like more support for your claim.  Relativity is not even part of most engineering curricula.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:17, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
+Relativity is, in fact, used in the GPS system.  The correction equations that must be used on the receiving side equipment are given in the official GPS interface specification, IS-GPS-200G [http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200G.pdf], p.92.  section 20.3.3.3.3.1: User Algorithm for SV Clock Correction.
-Are not the atomic bomb and nuclear power examples of inventions based on the equivalence of matter and energy?  MLS 9 Aug 10
+<blockquote>
+The polynomial defined in the
+following allows the user to determine the effective SV PRN code phase offset referenced to the
+phase center of the antennas with respect to GPS system time (t) at the time of data
+transmission. The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the twofrequency
+user for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This estimated
+correction accounts for the deterministic SV clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as
+well as for the SV implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential
+group delay. '''Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function'''...
+</blockquote>
-== GPS revisited ==
+== Biblical Examples ==
-The same Tom von Flandern who is quoted in the article on the [[theory of relativity]] saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein", wrote in an article in 1998:
+You can't really use the Bible to prove that the Bible is correct. While I'm not disputing the Bible, that doesn't change the fact that it's a tautological argument. I could easily "prove" relativity by saying "Einstein said such-and-such" and conclude therefore that such-and-such is true. But in reality, that wouldn't prove anything because I'd essentially be saying "Einstein said this, therefore what Einstein said is correct". It's no different for the Bible. Even if we were to argue that the Bible represents absolute truth, keep in mind that our source for that is the Bible itself, so regardless of what you believe, it's still a tautological argument. I'm not going to remove the Biblical examples without discussion, but I don't think they belong here. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:31, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
-''So we can state that the clock rate effect predicted by GR is confirmed to within no worse than ±200 / 45,900 or about 0.7%, and that predicted by SR is confirmed to within ±200 / 7,200 or about 3%. This is a very conservative estimate. In an actual study, most of that maximum 200 ns/day variance would almost certainly be accounted for by differences between planned and achieved orbits, and the predictions of relativity would be confirmed with much better precision.''
+== The roundness of the sun ==
-As for how the satellites take into account the relativistic effects, here is his explanation of the so-called ''factory offset'' of the atomic clocks for the satellites:
+I'm not completely familiar with the general and special theories of relativity, but what do they have to say about the roundness of the sun? [[User:DennyR|DennyR]] 12:41, 18 August 2012 (EDT)
+:There is a relationship, though it's somewhat roundabout.  See item #4 in the rebuttal page. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 17:54, 18 August 2012 (EDT)
-''GPS atomic clocks in orbit would run at rates quite different from ground clocks if allowed to do so, and this would complicate usage of the system. So the counter of hyperfine cesium transitions (or the corresponding phenomenon in the case of rubidium atomic clocks) is reset on the ground before launch so that, once in orbit, the clocks will tick off whole seconds at the same average rate as ground clocks. GPS clocks are therefore seen to run slow compared to ground clocks before launch, but run at the same rate as ground clocks after launch when at the correct orbital altitude.''
+== Gravitational waves found ==
-Seems to me that relativistic effects have to be taken into account.
+[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19408363 BBC article]
-[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:13, 6 January 2010 (EST)
+[https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211 LIGO] [[User:Mark CS|Mark CS]] ([[User talk:Mark CS|talk]]) 22:35, 20 January 2017 (EST)
-:Frank, your intuition ("seems to me") is wrong here, and the entry explains it clearly.  GPS is a work of engineering and any timing discrepancies between the satellite and ground are obviously better handled directly by synchronization rather than asking a physicist what he thinks of relativity.  Engineers don't even bother taking general relativity courses, let alone try to build a satellite system using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 6 January 2010 (EST)
+== Lede quote ==
-::The Time Service Department – a department of the U. S. Navy - states: “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 – transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: 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.”
+I would argue if anything needs to be changed it's the detail in point 4. The lede quote is recent and relevant, and more sources for it are available than just LiveScience. In looking into it more just now, I've found it's progressed. Apparently the evidence against relativity was so concerning to the scientific community they began immediately trying to explain it away and forced the person in charge to resign.[http://news.discovery.com/space/opera-leaders-resign-after-no-confidence-vote-120404.html][http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html] Evidence that the original results are wrong was just finished.[http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/once-again-physicists-debunk.html] This displays the level of bias in the scientific community though, in trying to do all they can to protect the doctrine of relativity, and make it appear more substantiated and certain than it is. Maybe the quote should be removed, but it should be mentioned in point 4 regardless. That such major evidence was found in recent months against relativity and the scientific community sought so hard to cover it up, is news indeed. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 05:47, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
-::Sorry, Frank. {{unsigned|PhyllisS}}
+:No one mentioned in those articles believes that neutrinos travel faster than light. I don't see how the OPERA leaders' resignations provide any evidence. Sounds more like their team was ticked off at them for making them all look like fools. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 13:12, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
+::The fact that it occurred like that shows relativity today is still under investigation, and not necessarily a proven fact - right? The scientific community is still trying to persuade everyone there is evidence for it. The effort to prove relativity correct is ongoing, rather than established like it was portrayed. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 21:23, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
-:::As far as I can see there is no reason to feel sorry for FrankC: Your article only covers the idea of using the [[Lorentz transformation instead]] of the [[Galileo transformation]] when calculating the position of an object: one could say that it is about the relativistic effects caused by the movement of the GPS receiver, not of the GPS satellites. That's why it's talking about ''fast moving air-planes and satellites''.
+==Removing material==
-:::FrankC (and others) have shown that there are relativistic effects on the satellites which are taken account of:
+Unless you are the site owner, please do not remove, dilute, or water down, or adulterate the items here.  This page is extremely famous, and represents the views of the site owner.  It has been quoted and cited in print and internet articles all over the world.  It has over 1.8 million page views, more than 10 times as many as either the [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] and the [[Counterexamples to Evolution]] articles.  If you think something is wrong, the [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]] article is the place to bring it up.
-::::[http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service Signal Specification], 2nd edition, June 1995:
-::::p. 13: ''To compensate for relativistic effects, the output frequency of the satellite's frequency standard -- as it would appear to an observer located at the satellite -- is 10.23 MHz offset by a Df/f = -4.4647 x 10-18 or a Df  = -4.567 x 10-3 Hz.''
+:I suppose "2+2=4" represents my views also, but the truth does not care whether I or anyone else agrees.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 6 September 2012 (EDT)
-::::p. 39: ''The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the control segment two-frequency receivers for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted.  This estimated correction accounts for the deterministic satellite clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as well as for the satellite implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential group delay.  Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction.  Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function.''
+::Touché!  Your point is well taken.  Though I doubt that taking such a daring and controversial stand would get 1.8 million page views.  :-)  [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 22:36, 17 September 2012 (EDT)
-::: (From [[Talk:Global Positioning System]])
-::: [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 12:44, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
-:::: I would like to second the points made by [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] in that there is far too much evidence and calculations that indicate just how vital GR is to accurate calculations. The effects of gravitational and time dilation predicted by general relativity are not negligible over the course of one day. The article linked to above by [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] is a fantastic review of some of the mathematics behind the (verifiable) predictions made by the theory of general relativity. - 14th August 2010 [[User:NotesTH|NotesTH]]
+== 27. RE:PSR B1913+16 ==
+<blockquote>
+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.
+</blockquote>
+I would like to suggest that this be removed as both points (1. lack of data and 2. divergence from relativistic predictions) were disproved by the publishing of [http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/722/2/1030/ this paper] in The Astrophysical Journal in 2010. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:35, 8 April 2013 (EDT)
+==Force acting on a mass==
+The example, "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?" needs to be rephrased to be more clear.  Are we talking about measuring the force applied to the object or mesuring the change in trajectory of the object?  The force acts on the object, but the sentence is currently phrased as if there are two possible different answers.  The force will cause the trajectory of the object to change, which can be measured in specified frames of reference.
-== Several Clarification/Corrections ==
+A good example would be a particle accelerator, or synchrotron.  A charge particle is traveling at speeds that approach the speed of light.  A magnetic field is applied to the particle to keep it traveling in a circular path.  As the speed of the particle increases, the force applied to the particle must increase to keep it in the track of the particle accelerator.  The force is applied at a right angle to the velocity of the particle.  The calculations to determine the force needed to hold the particle to a circular path are well-tested and verified. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 22:42, 8 April 2013 (EDT)
-I am new to Conservapedia, so I don't fully understand exactly how this site is structured; in particular who has the ability to edit protected pages.  This page is apparently protected, but in need of dire work even on the formatting/punctuation/style side of things.  I hope someone with the required access to protected pages can incorporate some of these changes.  In any event, here are some things that need to be clarified or corrected:
+==#47: Historical evidence suggests that the year used to have 360 days. However, Relativity cannot explain how the orbit or the rotation of Earth could have changed enough to give us the current 365.24-solar-day year.==
+To the best of my knowledge, this has no relevance toward proving nor disproving the General or Specific Theory of Relativity... However, very little of my physics training was in the field, so please correct me if I'm wrong. If there is no objection, I will be removing it after the mandated 24 hour waiting period. (unless the length of day suddenly changes again, I suppose it might be shorter/longer than 24 hours in that case) [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 13:18, 21 April 2013 (EDT)
-.  It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space".  Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology?  If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness.  If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.
+:According to liberals, General Relativity predicts all gravitational interactions. It follows that whenever a gravity-related prediction is incorrect, Relativity has been disproven, don't you agree? Somehow the length of the day or year has changed, even though Relativity says the orbit should be static.  Would you also support removing the other gravity-based examples #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #21, #41, #43, #44, #45? Of course not. [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] 14:20, 21 April 2013 (EDT)
-. #7 is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory.  In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.
+Honestly, yes I would... For reasons explained on [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]] and through any number of scientific journals. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 15:00, 21 April 2013 (EDT)
-. #8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer.  Hence special relativity is not violated.
+::I agree with Fnarrow. I stumbled upon this page recently and thought it was a parody. I see that some of the stranger items have been removed. But #40 persists... what do tides have to do with relativity?  And #39 pre-supposes that an object is traveling at the speed of light? These are parodies, right? [[User:AlexanderS|AlexanderS]] 22:10, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
-. #10 is not a counterexample because gravitons are not predicted by general relativity.  They are expected to exist and be predicted by a successful ''quantum'' theory of gravity, but general relativity is not such a theory.
+At least they finally got rid of the "Earthquakes in Ireland" example... I never could figure that one out. lol. But #4 still persists even thought it is easily explained by anyone who understands that it's surface is a plasma and not a solid as the citation presupposes. Anyway, I wouldn't go around agreeing with me too vocally, that's not a popular stance to take these days. Thanks for the support anyway though, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 22:31, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
-. #11 is not a counterexample to the theory at all.  It may be an argument for why the theory should not be studied, but that doesn't mean it is ''false'', and thus is not a counterexample.
+== Protect this page ==
-. #13 is presumably a reference to the horizon problem of cosmology.  This should be stated, and, as for the flatness problem, the theory of cosmological inflation should be mentioned.  (I realize inflation has not been empirically verified, but since the majority of cosmologists believe it is the correct explanation, it deserves a mention in an encyclopedia article.)
+This page should be protected, as parodists seem to be attracted to editing it, and inserting their own information. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:47, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
+::I second the protection motion put forward by [[User:Brenden|Brenden]]. As much as I 1. hate protected pages on a wiki which depends on "the best of the public" an 2. desperately want to personally replace this page with refutations of every example [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] has made it clear that this page is one of the most popular on the wiki and that he stands by it. Therefore I think the following should happen:
+::#Revert to last known "approved" version, looks like that would be "20:44, 10 January 2013" in my opinion.
+::#Protected
+::#Move and expand the notice which currently appears at the bottom re: "future edits" and the [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity.]] to the top of the page.
+::#Allow only [[User:Aschlafly]] to change the article in the future when/if someone provides sufficient evidence on this talk page to convince him that their proposal warrants such display.
+::I will take care of numbers 1 and 3 after the mandatory 24 hour waiting period, I leave 2 and 4 up to someone with those powers. Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 09:34, 24 April 2013 (EDT)
+I concur with Brenden and Fnarrow.  This is a highly technical subject, and while it reflects the best of the public, the constant back and forth consumes too much energy from the best of the public that could be devoted to other articles. The  20:44 10 Jan version seem appropriate to me. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:39, 24 April 2013 (EDT)
+:Are you sure that 10 January is the right target? That version includes the derided "earthquakes in Ireland" example, as well as a few other recently-purged items. [[User:AlexanderS|AlexanderS]] 13:48, 24 April 2013 (EDT)
+::Watch out for the edits by the parodist Spielman, when selecting the revision. I haven't read the others yet, so I have no idea if they are also parody. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:05, 24 April 2013 (EDT)
+:::Are those the ones Spielman listed in the above section (#2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #21, #41, #43, #44, #45)? Are those all parody edits?  I tried contacting him (?) for clarification, but seems to be blocked. [[User:AlexanderS|AlexanderS]] 14:30, 24 April 2013 (EDT)
+::::He's a parodist, and his edits have never been in good faith. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:46, 24 April 2013 (EDT)
+I'm open to any/all suggestions. 10 Jan may not be the "best possible date" but I chose it based upon the fact that it seems to align the most closely with both [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly's]] most recent edit and the refutations offered on [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]. While I agree that some of the entries on that date seem to be either 1. parodies or 2. gross misunderstandings of what the [[Theory of Relativity]] actually is, I figured choosing the date which most closely matched those two criteria would require the least all around editing on both pages. As this is obviously a contentious topic, I just want to let everyone know that I won't be changing it myself, I'll leave that to someone higher on the food chain once a satisfactory agreement has been reached here. Thanks to everyone for participating in this discussion. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 14:55, 24 April 2013 (EDT)
+:::I also will wait, but in the meantime I have restored the two items deleted by AlexanderS.  I would hope that Andy or someone who has spent more time than I have on the topic, will look at this page.  A group of people have invested a lot of work on generating this list.  If items are sourced, they should not be removed.  If an item is a parody, then it should be removed because it will detract from CP's credibility.  I have an open mind about this, but I also think that claims made on this page should be backed up by more detailed articles in CP.  For example, the rotation of the Earth around the Sun should be covered in depth in the [[Earth]] article.  If people disagree as to the relativistic effects on measuring the "year", we should give both sides of the controversy and let the reader decide.  CP has at least four articles on relativity.  We then summarize the "Counterexamples to Relativity" and also have a rebuttal essay.  Anyone willing to read through all of that (even if the reader is a homeschooled high school student) will understand what to believe. I say lock at January 10, and then if someone wants to add or subtract from that, they can plead their case to Andy or some other Admin. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 22:26, 25 April 2013 (EDT)
-. #14 is again the problem of the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum field theory (namely that QFT is not background-invariant).  This is not a problem with general relativity, other than in the sense that it is only an approximation (like, say, Maxwellian electrodynamics are just an approximation to quantum electrodynamics).
+== Set back to version of 1 December -- explanation ==
-. #15, aside from the obvious grammatical error (''violated'' instead of the correct ''violate''), is again not a counterexample to general relativity.  General relativity predicts wormholes ''only'' on the assumption that so-called "exotic matter" exists.  This is matter that has net negative mass/energy, and so is predicted not to exist for precisely the reasons listed here (time travel and the like).  But this is not a counterexample to general relativity itself, merely the observation that a mathematically possible solution does not have a physical manifestation.
+I have set the page back to the version of 18:45, 1 December 2012.  ''This version was made by the site owner.''  To those who say that Spielman was a "parodist", I can say that his general edits on technical matters, including inductor, capacitor, semiconductor, laser, neutron, and the other relativity pages, have been sensible and responsible.  I disagree with most of his edits to the counterexamples page, but I disagree with nearly everything on that page.  To those who dislike the "warp-speed solenoid" example, I wish to point out that it was put in by the site owner at 22:57, 20 August 2011.
-. #16 is again a quantum gravity issue.  It is wrong to call black holes "highly ordered (and thus low entropy)", though.  The fact is that science does not yet know how to count black hole microstates, so we don't know whether they are highly ordered or extremely disordered.  But the best explanation seems to be that general relativity and the Second Law together suggest that black holes should have extremely ''high'' entropy, not low entropy.  But again, this is not a counterexample to general relativity per se, since it makes no predictions about what black hole entropy should be.
+While I disagree with much of the content of the page, it should not be diluted by well-meaning editors.  Here is why:
-     ::I believe a blackhole's entropy is determined by the surface area of its event horizon. In this sense, it doesn't have low entropy at all.
+*This was largely written by the site owner, and clearly represents his views.  This is corroborated by his writings on other relativity pages elsewhere.  While he did not personally put in Spielman's items, he has steadfastly defended many similar items on the list (Hulse-Taylor, Mercury precession, supraluminal neutrinos, gravitons, gravity waves, dark matter, black holes, the aether, action-at-a--distance) in talk page discussions here and on other relevant pages.
+*In addition to writing many (if not most) of the points on this page, Andy has had ample opportunity to remove material that he considers detrimental to Conservapedia's position on relativity.  Most of Spielman's "parody" edits were made prior to Andy's last edit of 1 December 2012.
+*The "Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity" page adequately rebuts all of the points on the page.  Andy accepts its existence&mdash;he has placed counter-rebuttals on it.
+*When users (AugustO, Wschact, et al.) have diluted other relativity pages, particularly the E=mc^2 page, Andy has been quick to revert.
-. #18 appears to be a restatement of #11, and is thus both redundant, and not a counterexample for the reasons listed discussion #11.
+Users (and that includes myself) who disagree with this page and the other relativity pages are simply going to have to accept that they will not be satisfied.  They will just have to be satisfied with the "rebuttal" page, or will have to go elsewhere.  We need to stop the bickering.
+:I see that Andy has brought us back to a set of 47 counterexamples.  Could we please protect the page now? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 16:39, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
-I apologize for the length of this list of edits, but something really must be done to improve the quality of this article.  I hope that someone with the appropriate access sees fit to make the necessary changes soon.
+::Why not welcome improvements?  There have been many edits by others to this page that have strengthened it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:42, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
-[[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:12, 30 March 2010 (EDT)
+:::In my view it is a cost/benefit calculation.  I would rather have people spend their time developing substantive articles, including the articles about relativity.  The "Counterexamples to Relativity" and "Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity" pages are more of an "op-ed" feature instead of being an integral part of the encyclopedia.  I don't have the time to delve into each tendered counter-example and rebuttal.  So, I would advise locking the Counterexamples down, subject to anyone making a request to add an additional bona fide counter-example.  This subject is too easy to parody.  For example, someone reading the "Earthquakes in Ireland" bullet would be tempted to add bullets for "Earthquakes in X" (where X is any country that has had an earthquake.)  We need stated criteria for inclusion of new bullets and then we should enforce the criteria. So, protecting the article would be the next logical step. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 17:22, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
-:REPLY BELOW:
+::::Improvements? In reward for some of those "improvements" [[User:Spielman|Spielman]] received a five-year block from [[User:Brenden|Brenden]]. Rightly so, in my opinion, but it doesn't seem like very consistent policy. (Sorry if this is off-topic, but it just struck me as odd.) [[User:AlexanderS|AlexanderS]] 19:29, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
-::1.  It is unclear what #6 is referring to by "overall space".  Is this a reference to the flatness problem in cosmology?  If so, that should be made explicit, and the most commonly accepted solution (inflation) should be mentioned for completeness.  If not, the curvature of space locally is clearly demonstrated by the observed phenomenon of gravitational lensing.
+==Inertia==
+Number 29 says, "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." Does this person mean "inertial mass"? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:41, 25 April 2013 (EDT)
-::: I'll clarify the obvious.  It's still a counterexample.  Science is not done by consensus, and inflation does not explain the overall flatness of space if relativity were true.
+:Good clarification.   Edit mad as suggested.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:13, 16 December 2014 (EST)
-::::You needn't be so condescending.  I wasn't saying that it isn't a problem with general relativity, I was just saying that since this is an encyclopedia, relevant information should be included.  Since a proposed solution exists, it should be mentioned, and perhaps debunked if it is flawed.  So you could mention inflation, and then say why it fails to solve the flatness problem. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)
+== Parodist ==
-:::::The theory of inflation does nothing "to solve the flatness problem" with respect its role as a counterexample to relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
+The counterexamples number [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=1003848&oldid=1002788 47, 48], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=1019735&oldid=1004457 49 and 50] were added by a parodist. Should they be removed?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 11:57, 16 December 2014 (EST)
-::::::Could you clarify this point?  Perhaps you could state exactly what you believe the flatness problem is and how it is a counterexample to GR, just to be sure we aren't talking past each other, as I fear we may have been so far. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:55, 4 April 2010 (EDT)
+:Yes, those additions should be removed.  Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:10, 16 December 2014 (EST)
-::2.  7: is just a feature of the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum field theory.  In this sense, general relativity is of course wrong (just as Newtonian mechanics is, for example), because it doesn't apply accurately below distance scales where quantum effects emerge.
+::Well, that's kind of embarrassing that such items would remain on the list for two years. And even now their removal is based not on logic, but on the identity of the contributor. Isn't it conceivable that the speed-of-light solenoid (now #46) is also parody? [[User:AlexanderS|AlexanderS]] 15:05, 4 January 2015 (EST)
-:::So at what distances do you declare general relativity to be false?  Is there a discontinuity at that distance?  Such an approach is absurd.
+::My apologies, the solenoid item was added by Mr. Schlafly himself. So, not parody. [[User:AlexanderS|AlexanderS]] 16:59, 4 January 2015 (EST)
-::::I mean, technically it is false at ''all'' length scales, just like any classical (non-quantum) theory (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwellian electromagnetism, classical statistical mechanics, etc.).  But there exists a range of length scales at which it is extremely accurate, and those are the only ones to which it makes claims having any epistemological value.  There is no discontinuity, it just gets progressively worse as quantum effects become more and more apparent, which occurs at smaller and smaller length scales.  Quantum effects definitely need to be taken into account around the level of a nanometer or so in most systems of interest, so I would say this is about the regime where GR needs to stop being used.  But of course, it depends on the system in question. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)
+:::Wikis are open to the public, and some people make incorrect edits, sometimes buried deep in an entry far beyond where most people would look.  The significance of such activity is zero, and eventually such little-noticed edits are reverted.  The only way to prevent such edits would be to close the wiki to the public, which would then miss out on many valuable insights from the [[best of the public]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 4 January 2015 (EST)
-:::::Not "technically it is false," but "it is false."  So teach it that way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
+== Action-at-a-distance according to the Bible ==
-::::::See KrisJ's discussion below. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)
-::3. 8 is not a problem because quantum nonlocality doesn't allow for information transfer.  Hence special relativity is not violated.
+{{cquote|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]].}}
-:::Your statement is a non sequitur, and may not be true.  Special relativity does deny non-locality.
+That doesn't make any sense. Take e.g., John 4:46-54 - the question is: did the action take place instantaneously, or was it perhaps conveyed with the speed of light. But Cana and Capernaum are roughly  30km away from each other! Even today, we would have difficulties to make such measurements - as seen during the OPERA neutrino speed experiment of 2011.
-::::It's not a non sequitur; the problem as I thought it was stated on the page is that special relativity does not allow information transfer faster than the speed of light.  Since quantum entanglement cannot actually transfer information, this does not violate that provision of special relativity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)
+How could the servants spot a difference of ca. 1/10.000 seconds? Answer: they couldn't
+*It's impossible to describe the breaking of a fever with such precision
+*Jesus said: "Go, your son lives" That takes considerably more time than 1/10.000s...
+*The fever left him at the seventh hour. Which one: Cana's or Capernaum's? Both differ by a couple of seconds, as all time-keeping was local!
-:::::Special relativity does not define "information" nor was it developed in that context.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:02, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
+Does the Bible claim that the healing was instantaneous? No, only that it took place roughly at the time Jesus spoke to the father. Jesus just tells him "Your son lives": it isn't said whether this is an observation of something which already had happened, a healing at this point of time, or a prophecy of an event in the future - all three possibilities are given (and impressive).
-::::::It is true that SR does not define information, but it does define causality (only events within each other's lightcones can be causally connected).  Physical transfer of information (as defined by Shannon, and encoded in physical systems in Minkowski spacetime) between points in spacetime can only occur if those points are causally connected.  (This SR fact is what the horizon problem, which is cited as another GR counterexample, relies on.) [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)
+You have to twist the scripture towards your preferred interpretation if you wish to crowbar "action at a distance" into these verses. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:57, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
-:::Will respond to your other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 30 March 2010 (EDT)
+:The Gospel passages are widely understood as describing [[action-at-a-distance]].  Also, please discuss first before repeatedly deleting something.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
-::::I appreciate your attention to my concerns, and I hope I have adequately outlined them.  Also, I hope I would not be asking too much to request formatting consistency (like adding periods at the ends of nos. 7, 8, and 9).  It would make it look more professional, like other articles I've seen on Conservapedia. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 21:19, 30 March 2010 (EDT)
+::Yes, Jesus acted over a distance - but instantaneously? That's your interpretation! If it is "widely understood" to happen instantaneously, you shouldn't have a problem to give some sources which corroborate this claim. I couldn't find any.
+::Furthermore: because of the technical problems which I described above, we cannot rely on eyewitnesses. Did Jesus Himself state that he has performed an [[action-at-a-distance]], i.e., caused something in a distance without temporary delay? No, He didn't.
+:: --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:33, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
-:::::Yill, your grand total of contributions to this site has been 3 edits to this page, all easily refutable.  Frankly, I don't think greater efforts at "formatting consistency" are justified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 03:01, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
+"''Please discuss first before repeatedly deleting something''": I'm happy to do so and I will present my arguments. Andy, I hope you will join the discussion!
+:I waited more than two days for the other site to engage in a meaningful discussion. It seems that we have reached an agreement. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:26, 22 March 2015 (EDT)
-::::::Your not going to be able to attract many users if you disparage newcomers with respect to how few edits they've made.  I would like to be a positive contributor to this site, but I have to start somewhere.  I would appreciate encouragement and constructive criticism, not condescension and personal attacks. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)
+===[[John 1-7 (Translated)#Chapter 4|John 4:46-54]]===
+Jesus didn't claim that the healing took place instantaneously. Andy, do you think the nobleman and his servants were able to spot whether to events took place at the same time in Cana and Capernaum? If not, this example should be removed. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:22, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
-::::::: Yill, good grammar requires "you're", not "your", in your statement above.  All your edits have been 100% talk, in violation of our [[90/10 rule]], and honestly I see no insights in your talk.  I suggest you try contributing substantively to [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)]]; it is on a much higher educational level and you'll benefit enormously from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
+:The better translation is "Then the father realized that this was the same moment when Jesus said to him, "your son lives," so both he and his entire house believed."  "Same moment" means simultaneously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:47, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
-:::::::: You're right, I had a typo there; I apologize for the error.  And I am well aware of the 90/10 rule, but seeing as the page I'm working on is protected, I'm not actually able to make any edits.  If it were unblocked or I were given the ability to edit it, I would be more than happy to stop posting on this talk page and instead edit the article itself.  And frankly I don't particularly see how it's relevant whether you personally happen to see any insights in my talk; my understanding is that Conservapedia is shaped and edited by its users, with appropriate oversight from administrators to ensure accuracy and prevent the chaos of Wikipedia.  If need be, I'll appeal to those administrators to get the article fixed, since none seem to have come forward to help.  I would love it if you would be willing to work with me to improve this article, but as it stands you seem to have little interest in doing so, having made no further contributions to the substance of the discussion.  If you change your mind, I would be happy to work with you on this endeavor.
+::'''"Then ''the father'' realized"''': how could the father judge that it happened "at the same moment", and not with a delay of 1/10,000 s? Answer: He couldn't - even if his son got better five minutes before he met Jesus, and Jesus just relayed this fact, or if the healing needed five minutes, and Jesus spoke about an event in the near future! For the father (and the Roman time-keeping abilities) it was enough that it happened in the same hour!
+::Everybody of a certain age knows what she or he did when Kennedy was shot. But does he really know what he did in the very moment the bullet struck the president? No, at best,  he knows what he did when the transmission of the shot arrived.  --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:01, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
-::::::::As for your suggested article for me to work on, I don't really understand what you mean by it being on a "much higher educational level."  However, as I have no expertise in Biblical Greek, I don't think I'd be able to make any meaningful contributions to the translation.  I'll let the experts in that subject deal with that article. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:37, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
+===[[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)#Chapter 15|Matthew 15:28]]===
+καὶ ἰάθη ἡ θυγάτηρ αὐτῆς ἀπὸ τῆς ὥρας ἐκείνης. ''and her daughter was healed from the very hour'' We don't know ''where'' the daughter was. Though the mother could have left her in Cana, she could also be accompanying her! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:22, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
-:::::::::Yill, I recommended the Bible because, as Isaac Newton pointed out, working on translating the Bible increases the quality of one's work in other areas, including science.  Sure, I could drop everything else I'm doing and spend all day correcting you about this entry, but if you just picked up a Bible and improved your own work, then I could learn from you instead.  I'll correct your misunderstandings below but doubt I will spend much more time responding to you if you're not willing to put in open-minded effort on your own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
+===[[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)#Chapter 27|Matthew 27:51]]===
+Andy, you state: "The Greek "Καὶ ἰδού" in this context emphasizes the identical timing" - but we have a string of sentences joined by Καὶ: '''Καὶ''' ἰδοὺ τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ ἐσχίσθη ἀπ' ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω εἰς δύο, '''Καὶ''' ἡ γῆ ἐσείσθη, '''Καὶ''' αἱ πέτραι ἐσχίσθησαν, '''Καὶ''' τὰ μνημεῖα ἀνεῴχθησαν '''Καὶ''' πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμημένων ἁγίων ἠγέρθησαν, '''Καὶ''' ἐξελθόντες ἐκ τῶν μνημείων μετὰ τὴν ἔγερσιν αὐτοῦ εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν '''Καὶ''' ἐνεφανίσθησαν πολλοῖς. Obviously, not all of these events happened at the same time! And for the last four years, you haven't presented any scholarly source which would support your translation of [[idou]]! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:33, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
-Yill, you raise excellent points, most of which have not been raised before.  We should sharpen those points, here on this page, and then address them on the actual article page.  This will take a fair amount of discussion.  I could start by bringing up the discussion of point 7, inaccuracy of relativity at the quantum mechanical scale.  One question that was raised was "Is there a discontinuity at that [microscopic boundary] distance? Such an approach is absurd.". No. The way quantum mechanics and classical theories interact at the (microscopic) scales where this happens is well known. It is, of course, generally known as the Bohr correspondence principle, described in any textbook on quantum mechanics, and known in more detail as Ehrenfest's theorem, described in more advanced textbooks. (Very briefly, the quantum mechanical realm eases into the classical realm according to the Ehrenfest theorem.) We should make some citations to those, and put in a careful explanation that, under QM, '''all''' classical theories are incorrect, and QM is the correct theory for everything, from atoms to planets. Classical theories are just extremely good approximations outside of the quantum-mechanical realm. And, of course, we do not know how that quantum-mechanical realm operated immediately after the big bang (that's what inflation theory is about), but that doesn't affect what we ''do'' know about general relativity in the macroscopic realm.
+== Widely Understood ==
-The item about point 10 is excellent. Gravitons arose ''after GR'', from attempts to unify the theories. They have nothing to do with the macroscopic aspects of GR, which is what GR is actually all about.
+Andy, the [[GPS]] is widely understood to take relativistic effects into account - and here, I can present examples ;-) --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:49, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
-[[User:KrisJ|KrisJ]] 10:04, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
+:The GPS adjustments are based on experimental observation, not contrived theoretical predictions by Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
-: Teach that relativity is incorrect, if you concede the point.  There are relativists who claim their theory is the most precisely verified theory of all.
+::Funny, how these experimental observations coincide with the theoretical predictions by relativity - one could see this as a confirmation of the theory.
+::But let's wait for [[Galileo]] - [http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Navigation/Improving_the_accuracy_of_satellite_navigation_systems they are thinking about a different approach]:
+:::&laquo;<i>Present navigation satellite systems, such as Galileo and GPS, employ Newtonian trigonometry to determine positions, using Earth stations as reference points. This approach would perform ideally if all the satellites and the receiver were at rest and far from Earth.</i>&raquo;
-::Those relativists claim that with respect to the macroscopic realm, as KrisJ referred to above.  We are discussing how it breaks down at the microscopic level, when QM starts to play a role. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)
+:::&laquo;<i>However, this is only correct as a first approximation – because of the level of precision needed by a GNSS, the distortions that Earth causes in nearby space and time (space-time curvature) and the effects of the relative motions between the satellites and the user (relativistic inertial effects) both have to be considered. These are accounted for by introducing relativistic corrections to the Newtonian theory. For a ground user, these corrections can be as large as 12 km after one day.</i>&raquo;
-: Gravitons are based on GR, and they are non-existent.  Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:37, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
+:::&laquo;<i>A simple way to avoid having to deal with the defects of Newtonian theory is to change the paradigm. Instead of modelling the system in a Newtonian framework and adding relativistic corrections, the positioning system could be modelled directly in general relativity. </i>&raquo;
+::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:08, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
-::No, for gravitons to be a counterexample to GR, they must be predicted by it.  But they are not, just as photons are not predicted by Maxwellian electrodynamics.  They are the "quantum" of the gravitational field, as photons are for the electromagnetic field, and are quantum ''by definition''.  GR is ''not'' a quantum theory; it manifestly does not predict them. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)
+:The "experimental observation" and "[contrived] theoretical predictions" happen to match.  This should surprise no one, since relativity is correct.  The GPS adjustments may be made by computers that are using observed ephemeris data from the satellites, but '''everyone involved knows''' that the '''basis''' for those adjustments (7 us/day up for SR; 45 us/day down for GR) is relativity.  No one operating the GPS control stations will tell you that "We fudge the satellite clocks by 38 microseconds per day, but we don't know why this is needed."  They knew that they would need the correction, based on relativity, before the satellites were launched; the correction mechanism was built in before launch.  Very fine "tweaking" of the clocks is made by the control stations, but that's because of uncertainty of the satellites' orbits.  The tweaking is not because relativity is wrong.  See [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html this article] for an explanation of the 38 microsecond correction.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:00, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
-:KrisJ, I appreciate your assistance with this project.  I absolutely agree with your suggestions about 7 and 10, and hopefully we can find an editor with the ability to edit protected pages to help us implement them.  If you know of any that could help us, you should ask if they would be willing. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 16:49, 4 April 2010 (EDT)
+===Andy, you are missing the point of this section===
+The [[GPS]] is '''''widely understood''''' to take relativistic effects into account - just google ''"GPS" "theory of relativity"'' and you get numerous links to universities, etc., most of which in favor of the statement. Nonetheless, this isn't good enough  for you: predictably, you are ignoring all these voices, and just state that "''The GPS adjustments are based on experimental observation, not contrived theoretical predictions by Relativity''". I get it: ''"widely understood"'' isn't a yardstick for credibility.
-I guess I was wrong about not being able to edit this article.  I'm going to delete #10, as per above, and make some formatting changes. I may also make some other clarifying edits. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:45, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
+Or is it? A little earlier, your only answer to
+{|class="wikitable"
+|
+{{cquote|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]].}}
-I also deleted the references to relativity being useful, since those have nothing to do with its epistemological validity. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:52, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
+That doesn't make any sense. Take e.g., John 4:46-54 - the question is: did the action take place instantaneously, or was it perhaps conveyed with the speed of light. But Cana and Capernaum are roughly  30km away from each other! Even today, we would have difficulties to make such measurements - as seen during the OPERA neutrino speed experiment of 2011.
-== Curvature of Space ==
+How could the servants spot a difference of ca. 1/10.000 seconds? Answer: they couldn't
+*It's impossible to describe the breaking of a fever with such precision
+*Jesus said: "Go, your son lives" That takes considerably more time than 1/10.000s...
+*The fever left him at the seventh hour. Which one: Cana's or Capernaum's? Both differ by a couple of seconds, as all time-keeping was local!
-Re [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&curid=97238&diff=766130&oldid=742826 this] edit: I don't disagree, but the example is a bad one. Based on local observations, one would assume that the Earth itself is flat, but it clearly isn't. My own point of view is that since the Universe can never be proved to be one thing or another, it is part of God's own ineffable being - it is almost folly to inquire further. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:24, 30 March 2010 (EDT)
+Does the Bible claim that the healing was instantaneous? No, only that it took place roughly at the time Jesus spoke to the father. Jesus just tells him "Your son lives": it isn't said whether this is an observation of something which already had happened, a healing at this point of time, or a prophecy of an event in the future - all three possibilities are given (and impressive).
-: No, one would not assume the Earth is flat based on local observations, as a ship can be observed to "rise" over the horizon.  I don't agree with the "nature is God" view either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:34, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
+You have to twist the scripture towards your preferred interpretation if you wish to crowbar "action at a distance" into these verses. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:57, 19 March 2015 (EDT)|}
-::Funny coincidence(?) that a defender of relativity invokes pantheism, since it was Einstein's (and Spinoza's) "god." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:50, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
+|}
+was
-:I actually think the edit has merit, as long as the word "initial" is inserted before curvature, since the problem is that any initial curvature should be vastly amplified over time as the universe undergoes its usual expansion.  And it is in fact the global curvature that is the issue here; ''any'' manifold we use to model the universe is by definition locally flat (since this is a fundamental property of manifolds).  The ship and horizon observation is not a local observation, since it is fundamentally predicated on the global curvature of the Earth.  "Local" means that it can be done at arbitrarily small distance scales, which that observation cannot. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 17:06, 4 April 2010 (EDT)
+{|class="wikitable"
+|The Gospel passages are widely understood as describing [[action-at-a-distance]].  Also, please discuss first before repeatedly deleting something.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
-General relativity predicts that space-''time'' should be curved and not just spatial sections of the 4D spacetime manifold.  And space-time is indeed observed to be curved (because the universe is expanding and is hence described by a curved FRW metric).  This is true even if space alone is flat, as it is observed to be. That space is observed to be flat doesn't contradict relativity - it is a question of initial conditions of the universe and has a neat solution in inflationary cosmology. So Point no. 6 is absolutely unnecessary. Of course, most of the other points are too. But I just want to see how Andy will respond to this and edit the article so that it indeed can be said to belong to a "trustworthy encyclopedia".
-[[User:Saywhat|Saywhat]] 08:19, 13 August 2010 (EDT)
-: Your "of course" convinces no one.  Why would you start with point 6 if you "of course" had answers for points 1-5?
-: Relativity does imply that space as well as space-time are curved.  The observation of a flat universe does contradict what would be expected if Relativity were true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 13 August 2010 (EDT)
-:::: A trivial solution to Einsteins field equations for a vacuum can result in Minkowski spacetime. This is a 4D metric describing a pseudo-Riemannian manifold with no spatial curvature (i.e. flat). A requirement of GR is that in locally inertial frames (i.e. small enough regions of spacetime) we recover Minkowski spacetime. It's just that in GR the requirement of a locally Minkwoski spacetime does not always extend to a global case with curvature effects breaking down the notion of inertial frames for all observers. This means that a flat spacetime is a valid prediction arising from General Relativity. The presence of matter will, generically, curve spacetime but certain models such as the FLRW models used in cosmology permit solutions that predict a spatially flat Universe under a given condition. It should also be noted that the FLRW models are not static and do change with time.
-::::The observation of a flat Universe (spatial curvature parameter, K = 0 in the FLRW metric) is not in violation of GR and is a valid solution to Einsteins field equations (see e.g. Friedmanns Equations) and a generic prediction of models for inflationary cosmology whereby a rapid expansion in the early Universe drives the Universe towards a spatially flat solution, certainly within the observable Universe. Predictions from GR are still obeyed contrary to the comment "flat universe does contradict what would be expected if Relativity were true".
-:::: I do not feel that the point in discussion is in any way a counterpoint to relativity. If other objections arise then perhaps this point would need to be further clarified so that any issues may be appropriately discussed? 15th August 2010
-== Reversion explained ==
-Reversion was necessary for two reasons:  first, to restore material that was improperly censored, and second, to revert an imprecise label put on one of the counterexamples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
-:I don't want to get into an edit war here, so I won't undo your reversion for now.  But I fail to understand your reasoning, so perhaps you could clarify a bit instead of making the one sentence assertions that have made up your discourse so far.  There is no censorship here, merely deletion of objectively incorrect statements.  Perhaps you could actually bother to respond to my points above, rather than just reverting my edits without justification.  In the meantime, I will replace the periods I added at the end of several of the counterexamples for formatting consistency; hopefully you don't consider ''that'' to be "censorship" as well. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 20:48, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
-::You deleted valid information.  Gravitons are predicted by an attempt to reconcile GR with quantum mechanics.  Without GR gravitons would not be expected; with GR people do expect to find them.  The wholesale deletion of reference to this is unwarranted, and simply conceals a real flaw in GR.
-:::First of all, I want to thank you for actually explaining your claims.  Now we can actually have the real discussion KrisJ suggested above.  You are perfectly correct in stating the gravitons are predicted by an attempt to reconcile GR with QM; that is precisely the point I was trying to make.  But by your logic we could rightly conclude that the flaw is with QM rather than GR--without QM gravitons would not be expected either.  On what basis do you claim that the non-observance of gravitons is a counterexample to GR rather than a counterexample to QM?  (Also, I should note that just because gravitons have not yet been observed, that doesn't mean they won't be.  For example, the non-observation of the Z boson did not constitute a counterexample to the electroweak theory between 1979 and 1983.) [[User:Yill|Yill]] 22:55, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
-::::Gravitons were historically proposed in trying to reconcile GR with QM.  Other theories of gravity may not require gravitons at all.  Does string theory?  Gravitons are thereby attributable to GR, not to the more developed and better verified QM.  ''Simply look at the name "gravitons" itself''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:23, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
-:::::Actually, any quantum theory of gravity, whether it reduces to GR at large scales or not, requires gravitons ''by definition''.  Do you even understand what a graviton ''is''?  ''The quantum of a gravitational field.''  Just as any quantum theory of electromagnetism ''must'' include the photon in its particle spectrum, any quantum theory of gravity ''must'' include the graviton in its particle spectrum.  And yes, string theory requires them; the entire reason string theory started being developed as a theory of everything is that gravitons (i.e. massless spin-2 bosons) naturally appear as part of its particle spectrum! [[User:Yill|Yill]] 14:57, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
-:::::: Yill, do you know what [[action-at-a-distance]] is?  It doesn't require the fictional gravitons.  Newtonian mechanics doesn't require such imaginary particles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:00, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
-:::::::Do you know what ''quantum'' means?  Please acknowledge that you do, and that you know Newtonian mechanics is not a quantum theory, and therefore that ''your response does not address my concern.'' [[User:Yill|Yill]] 00:19, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
-::The "flatness problem" refers primarily to curvature expected from inflation, not GR itself.  It is misleading to call the counterexample the "flatness problem," and then pretend it has a solution.  The counterexample described is not resolved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
-:::The flatness problem refers to the fact that, in an ''inflation-free'' universe, the FRW metric with matter and radiation equation-of-state parameters predicts that any initial nonzero curvature will increase vastly in magnitude, leaving a highly curved universe at present.  Inflation is proposed as a ''solution'' to the flatness problem; it is not the cause of it.  The process of inflation drastically flattens any initial curvature in the universe so dramatically that even after the curvature increase undergone under normal evolution, the universe still appears nearly perfectly flat. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 22:55, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
-:::Wait, I just realized that I think we may be talking past one another here.  I interpreted the counterexample listed on the page to be the flatness problem, but based on your response I guess that it is not.  (Obviously the flatness problem is not a counterexample to GR itself, just to the use of the FRW metric for modeling the universe.)  This counterexample seems to be more fundamental, namely the claim that space is nowhere curved, as GR says it must be by matter and energy.  Is that correct? [[User:Yill|Yill]] 23:25, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
-::::A ''type'' of inflation is proposed to try to explain the unexpected flatness.  But there's no way around the basic problem:  GR says that space is curved by matter, and an overall flatness is impossible under such a model.  Yet an overall flatness is what is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:23, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
-:::::I still don't understand what you're saying.  The ''overall'' visible universe ''is'' flat, at scales large enough that it can accurately be modeled as homogeneous and isotropic.  (These scales are beyond the sizes of galactic clusters.)  But on much smaller scales, where these assumptions obviously break down, matter does indeed curve spacetime; the phenomenon of gravitational lensing is precisely such an example.  If you are at all confused by these different notions, I would recommend taking a look at a modern textbook on the subject; Barbara Ryden's ''Introduction to Cosmology'' is a good place to start. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 14:57, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
-::::::Dark matter supposedly permeates the universe, and there's no way it would be flat if GR were true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:48, 7 April 2010 (EDT)
-:::::::Okay, now ''that'' is a total non sequitur.  Again, instead of making blanket assertions, perhaps you should learn why, given that they believe dark matter permeates the universe ''and'' that it is flat on large scales, cosmologists still think GR works.  Let me enlighten you.  If the universe were evenly filled with a uniformly dense substance, the curvature would be flat.  Yet there were would be matter in it!  And that's it.  On large enough scales, that's how the universe appears.  Hence there is no contradiction. [[User:Yill|Yill]] 00:19, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
-:::::::: An additional clarification to the previous discussions: According to Einsteins equations (neglecting the cosmological constant for now):
- <math> G_{ab} = R_{ab} - \frac{1}{2} g_{ab} R = 8 \pi G T_{ab} </math>
-in which: <math> R_{ab} </math> is representative of the curvature of spacetime (Ricci tensor) and <math> T_{ab} </math> is representative of the matter/energy content of the given model (Stress-Energy tensor). So Einsteins equations state that the presence of matter gives rise to curvature effects in spacetime. In FLRW cosmology the existence of a spatially flat solution is possible if the total density ~ critical density required for a flat Universe. The fact that the Universe is non-static and we currently include a dark energy component does not mean that a Universe that is currently observed to be spatially flat is in conflict with predictions of General Relativity. The flatness problem is more of an initial value problem/fine tuning problem than that of a breakdown in GR.
-== Proposed page move ==
-Can someone rename the article so the R is lowercase in the title? Thanks, [[User:GregoryZ|GregoryZ]] 22:21, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
-:Why?  The term refers to a specific theory, and the many counterexamples to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:31, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
-::My simple rationale is "relativity" is not a proper noun. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity Wikipedia uses the lowecase] and so does [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relativity Wester's], so why not here? --[[User:GregoryZ|GregoryZ]] 22:36, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
-:::It's not a traditional proper noun, you're right, but it does satisfy all the conditions underlying why proper nouns are capitalized.  It is a unique term-of-art, having a specific meaning other than the general meaning of the word.  As used in physics, "Relativity" is different from the generic "relativity".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
-::::However, it is my belief, "relativity" in this case should not be treated differently. Look at the Wikipedia article, it uses "relativity" in that sense. Also, the [[theory of relativity|CP article on the subject]] uses the lowercase as well, so I still see no point in capitalizing it here. --[[User:GregoryZ|GregoryZ]] 23:07, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
-::::: The word "relativity" dates from the early 1800s.  That's not what is being discussed here.  If preceded with "theory of" then there is no need to capitalize; if stand-alone, however, it does add clarification to capitalize as is done for other specific concepts that differ from the generic names.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
-== Curl of the gravitational field ==
-Sorry to get over-technical, but the fundamental law of "fictitious forces" (including gravity) is that the force field (divided by the mass of the test object) is
-<math>G^i = - \Gamma^i_{00}</math>
-Its curl is
-<math>(\nabla \times G)^i = \mathcal{E}^{ijk} g_{km} G^m_{;j}</math>
-where the semicolon indicates the covariant gradient.
-When you work this out, it involves derivatives of the <math>\Gamma\,</math> quantities.  In general relativity, the results are zero by symmetries of Riemann's tensor.
-[[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 21:33, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
-: Perhaps so, but the "twin paradox" in Relativity states that the age of each twin is dependent on his path of travel.  For a conservative field, all physical parameters are path independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
-:: Simeon, your mathematical work is rigorous and correct. However, the twin paradox example is interesting to study here. I am aware that the twin paradox is solved by the non-inertial turn-around of the ship when it is going back home. However, in this solution, it is still noted that there is an age difference between the twins. [http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm Wikipedia affirms this] and so do [http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm other sites]. Such an age difference in twins shows that there is some sort of path dependence. I understand that traveling at near-c speeds in space is not the same thing as moving from point A to B in a gravitational field, but the concept does seem to be a bit similar. Could you maybe explain this for us a bit? Thanks. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 00:52, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
-OK, I think I understand.  I assumed that the "conservative field" / "curl is zero" stuff referred to the gravitational force field.  If it refers to the passage of time, that's different.  It isn't true that "all physical parameters are path independent".  An extremely important one that isn't path independent is the arc length of the path or arc.  You can draw a short straight line from A to B, or a long loopy line that starts at A, wanders around, and eventually gets to B.  Why is this relevant to the twin paradox?  Because, in relativity, an observer's own elapsed time ("local time") is really just the arc length of his "world line" in Minkowski space.  Minkowski was an extremely smart guy, by the way.  The twin that stays home takes a direct route from point A (their birth) to point B (the moment they compare ages and see that one has gray hair and wrinkled skin.)  The other twin takes a very roundabout route, getting in a rocket and going to Alpha Centauri and back.  Their path lengths are their local times, which are different.  (Why is the length of the roundabout path actually shorter, so that that twin ages less?  Because, in Minkowski space, using the "timelike convention" that all the best people use :-), motion in space subtracts from the elapsed time.  That's just the way it works.)
-Now I assume that there is no dispute about the facts of relativistic time dilation.  In addition to being predicted exactly by the Lorentz transform, it has been observed in practice in cosmic ray muon decays, as well as countless observations in particle accelerators.  The "twin paradox" is just an extreme consequence of this.  It has of course never been observed in that form, just as we don't know whether Schrodinger's cat is alive.
-The "twin paradox" is a consequence of special relativity, not general, and hence does not relate to gravity.  I hate to be the umpteenth person to tell you that general relativity is too hard to explain, but it's kind of true.  I barely understand the most rudimentary basics.  (When Eddington made his comment about only 3 people in the world who understand gen. rel., I wasn't the third!  :-)  But I can say that you don't need to worry about general relativity to understand the "twin paradox".  You can finesse the Minkowski-space curvature of the path during the turnaround at Alpha Centauri, and just say that the twin went there and came back.  So was something physically different, that the twins could observe?  You bet.  The "younger" twin will remember having experienced 6 months of horrendous acceleration in the ionic-drive rocket, followed by a year of horrendous turnaround, and another 6 months of horrendous deceleration at the end.  She will have soft, smooth skin, but at a great cost. :-)
-Sorry to be so long-winded.  In quick summary, the thing that's different about the paths is their length, and that is exactly the local elapsed time.  [[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 00:07, 1 August 2010 (EDT)
-: Simeon, time dilation occurs under the Theory of General Relativity also, so your analysis above is not persuasive in resolving this example of a non-conservative effect.  Moreover, your repeated claims about how supposedly only geniuses can understand this are getting tiresome.  That approach is a recipe for mistaken reliance on unjustified authority.
-: If you don't feel this is understandable, then simply say so and stop there; please do not imply that people should just accept what someone of undisclosed political views claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:58, 1 August 2010 (EDT)
-I give up.
-*The only scientists I mentioned were Minkowski and Eddington, and the latter just as a joke.  I never said anything about their, or anyone else's, politics.
-*Time dilation does indeed occur under both general and special relativity.  The point I was trying to make is that general relativity is simply not needed to understand the twin paradox.  It only takes special relativity, which is much better understood.  I'm sorry to hear that, by not analyzing the twin paradox in terms of general relativity, my persuasiveness suffered.
-*I apologize if I "talked down" to you and Phyllis with my comments about GR being too complicated.  I assume that both of you have heard, many times, that GR is exceedingly complicated.  I was simply trying to soften the blow by pointing out that you ''don't need'' GR.  And cracking that joke about how Eddington could not have been referring to me.
-*In fact, I know a fair amount about GR.  I ''could'' analyze the twin paradox in terms of the gravitation of Earth and Alpha Centauri.  But there is simply no need to.
-*This "non-conservative effect" business simply makes no sense.  If the integration of a vector field along different paths gets different final results, then that field is non-conservative.  You seem to be saying that the ''passage of time'' is some kind of vector field, and that the final results of "integrations" (the two different values of local time at the end of the experiment) are supposed to be the same, and that the difference shows that this "vector field" is not conservative, and that that is a counterexample to relativity.  The passage of time is not a vector field.  The different values of time, as seen by different observers, is not a ''counterexample'' to relativity, it is ''one of the principal effects'' of relativity.  It's really what the word "relativity" means when discussing the scientific Theory of Relativity.
-*If you really think that the non-globality and non-absoluteness of time is a counterexample to relativity, then so be it.
-[[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 23:13, 1 August 2010 (EDT)
-: Simeon, if you "give up," then that is your own choice.  You have not disproved the counterexample.  Instead, you first described the twin paradox as being only about special relativity, and when I pointed out that it exists under general relativity too, you then agree yet do not fully address the substantive issue presented by the paradox.  For example, the amount of acceleration undertaken by the twin in his journey will affect his age independent of his time spent away.  His subsequent age is ''not'' path independent even in time-space coordinates.
-: It's easy to search for "general relativity" and "conservative field" on the internet and see how little has been written about this.  That is telling in itself.  I'm happy to continue to discuss this here with you or anyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 1 August 2010 (EDT)
-:: Could you clarify what the ages (and path dependence thereof) in the twin paradox have to do with conservative fields?  --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 14:04, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
-::: Age is scalar physical attribute.  It should not be path dependent in a [[conservative field]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:31, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
-:::: Yes, but which [[conservative field]] in particular are you talking about here (that implies age is not path dependent)?  --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 14:37, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
-::::: Gravity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:53, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
-:::::: Well, in Newtonian mechanics, the gravitational field is indeed conservative -- it's the negative gradient of the gravitational potential!   But what this means is that gravitational potential energy is path-independent: it doesn't say anything about path-independence any other quantities, and in particular it's not the reason for the path-independence of age.  --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 15:00, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
-::::::: You take a narrow view of the significance of a "conservative field."  Independent physical attributes should remain path-independent as well for the field to be conservative.  In Newtonian mechanics and most other physical force fields, they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:41, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
-:::::::: By a conservative field, I mean a vector field on space for which there exists a scalar function V with the gradient of V given by that vector field.  This doesn't imply the path-independence of any physical quantities other than V itself.  If you this view as too narrow, can you tell me what you take to be the definition of a conservative field? --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 15:57, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
-::::::::: Your definition is too narrow when discussing the theory of relativity, which describes the framework in which the force operates.  To be meaningful, the definition must be broader.  It must ensure the path independence of the scalar, as well as other scalars independent of that scalar.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:12, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
-:::::::::: Can you tell me what the correct definition is, then?  I have pretty good background in this stuff, no need to dumb it down, just be precise.  Certainly no field at all is going to conserve every scalar function, so I'd like to know which ones you want. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 18:20, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
-::::::::::: Kyle, I have an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]] about this, and don't see a precise definition anywhere that would be meaningful with respect to the theory of relativity.  It's striking how relativists avoid this issue, and even stop discussing it when it is brought up.
-::::::::::: I can propose a definition that you may be able to improve.  How about: a conservative theory of motion is one whereby scalar values of a particle are independent of its path of motion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:36, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
-That's an interesting proposal, and I too have an open mind about this.  Can you give an example of such a ''conservative theory of motion''?  One such would greatly help in devising the correct definition. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 19:29, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
-:Newtonian mechanics would be an obvious example.  By the way, how do you explain the general lack of discussion and papers about whether the theory of relativity is conservative, including the abrupt departure of User:Simeon from this discussion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
-:: Some scalar values in Newtonian mechanics are conserved because there exist associated conservative fields (or more generally [[Noether's Theorem|symmetries of the Lagrangian]]).  What is an example of a scalar value in the Newtonian mechanics that is not of this type, which makes this a conservative theory of motion while relativity is not?
-::I don't know why relativity's defenders won't confront this.  Maybe that could be the topic of the debate page -- I'm interested using this discussion to sharpen counterexample 21. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 23:55, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
-::: This is a really interesting discussion. I think I made a gross mistake in my first post. The theory of relativity urges us to think of the three space coordinates (x, y, and z) and the time coordinate (t) as four coordinates of space-time - that is, that space and time are pretty much the same. I extrapolated from this that since there can be a (conservative) gravitational field in space coordinates, there can also be some sort of conservative field depending on the time coordinate. I then extrapolated this notion to special relativity, and the twin paradox; I postulated that maybe time dilation effects were the work of a non-conservative field that was dependent on the t-coordinate. Now I see that this was all somewhat foolish. However, I wanted to ask you all: can you have a conservative or non-conservative field with respect to time? If not, I think time should '''not''' be considered as almost the same thing as x, y, z space. I feel that the ability for a dimension to have a field (conservative or not) is integral to its being considered a space-like dimension.
-::: Aschlafly, the fact that the twin paradox exists in general relativity is '''irrelevant'''. Yes, sure, the twin paradox occurs within space where general relativity is working, but there are no effects acting on the twins that influences the twin paradox in any way. Likewise, User:Simeon 's departure is also '''irrelevant'''.
-::: What about black holes, though? Surely their gravitational fields aren't conservative, since once an object passes the event horizon, you can't retrieve it. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 01:24, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
-Phyllis:
-You seem to be very curious about this topic.  I'm going to try to give an intuitive, but nevertheless scientifically correct, explanation of what is going on with relativity, the "twin paradox", and vector fields, potential functions, and path integrals.  This explanation will probably seem long and tedious, for which I apologize in advance.  I also apologize if it seems that I am being too "folksy", or talking down to you.  Please bear with me, and please pay close attention.
-We have a parking lot, and two twins, who are fitness enthusiasts and always wear pedometers wherever they go.  There are two spots, "X" and "Y", painted on the parking lot.  Both people stand on spot "X", set their pedometers to zero, and start walking.  Twin A simply walks directly to spot Y.  Twin B, being more into fitness, walks all over the place, eventually arriving at B.
-Now there are quite a number of things we can say.  First, the temperatures vary all over the place.  They are a ''scalar field''.  That means that they are associated with ''location on the parking lot'', not with any particular observer.  They are objective measurements that everyone agrees on, because they are aspects of space itself.  Our fitness enthusiasts are also amateur meteorologists, and carry thermometers around with them.
-::Twin A: "When I was at the green Toyota, I noticed that the temperature was 67 degrees Fahrenheit."
-::Twin B: "By coincidence, I also wandered past the green Toyota, and got the same reading."
-By the way, since temperature is a scalar field, it has a gradient, which is a vector field.  That field is conservative, according to the theorem of mathematical physics that says that curl grad &Phi; = 0 always.  This gradient is a ''vector field''.  Like the scalar of temperature, it is a property of the ''space (parking lot) itself''.  If the twins had been measuring this gradient (perhaps they carry around fancy "differential thermometers"), they would have gotten the same vector at the green Toyota.
-There is also a theorem of mathematical physics, sort of the opposite of the theorem above, that says that, if a vector field V has a curl of zero:
-*You can make a scalar field <math>\Phi\,</math> (a property of the space itself, not tied to any particular observer) that it is the gradient of.  That scalar field is called the "potential" for the (conservative) vector field.  (By the way, this is very closely related to "exact differential equations" that you wrote about!  Do you see the connection?)
-*If you integrate that vector field along any path between two points A and B (that is, you calculate
-:::<math>\int_A^B \vec{V} \cdot dl</math>
-for that path, where "dl" is the "line element" along the path), you will get <math>\Phi(B)-\Phi(A)\,</math>.
-*Since <math>\Phi(B)-\Phi(A)\,</math> is a property of the scalar field itself (and the points A and B), it follows that that path integral is the same for all paths.  And if the path ends on the same point it started on, the integral is zero.
-::Twin A: "I was measuring the gradient of the temperature as I walked, and calculating its path integral as I went.  I got an answer of 4 degrees."
-::Twin B: "I was doing the same.  My integral was much harder to calculate, because I was going all over the place.  But I also got 4 degrees.  Hey, wait a minute!  The temperature at the start point was 68 degrees, and at the end point it was 72 degrees.  That explains it."
-Now someone at the edge of the parking lot was running a Van deGraff generator, so there were electric fields all over the place.  The twins are also physics students, and carry electroscopes wherever they go.  They measured the electric field, and calculated its path integrals.  The electric field is conservative (in the absence of varying magnetic fields), so they got the same integral.  That integral was 600 volts (it's only static electricity, so it isn't dangerous).  Since the electric field is conservative, there is, by the previous theorem, a potential function.  That function was 600 volts higher at point B than at point A.
-Now here's the kicker:
-::Twin A: "I walked directly from A to B.  My pedometer says 150 feet."
-::Twin B: "I took a long route all over the place.  I walked half a mile."
-The pedometer readings ''are not a scalar field''.  They are not a property of the space itself.  They are properties of the observers.  Even though they, in some sense, measure an aspect of the parking lot (how many molecules of asphalt one passes), they are artifacts of the twins' actions.
-The twins could have been integrating their motion vectors; that's sort of what pedometers do.  But those vectors are not a vector field on the space itself.  It makes no sense to ask whether that "vector field" is conservative, because it isn't a vector field.  A vector (or scalar, or tensor) field has to be a property ''of the space itself''.  These "pedometer vectors" are just things that the twins make up as they walk.
-Now for the "twin paradox".  The parking lot is replaced by "Minkowski space", also called "4-dimensional space-time".  "Points" in this space are now "events", complete with a time.  Events A and B are now the act of the twins saying goodbye as one of them got into the rocket, and the act of them re-uniting after B returns.  Twin A took a direct route (called her "world line") from A to B.  She used a coordinate system in which the spatial coordinates of A and B were the same (Cape Canaveral, latitude yada yada, etc.) and the time coordinate differed by 30 years (2010 to 2040.)  B went to Alpha Centauri and back.  When she returned, they were both using the same coordinate system (location is Cape Canaveral, latitude yada yada, time is 2040.)  But she looks at her watch, and only 5 years have elapsed!  What the watch shows is ''not a scalar field on spacetime''.  It was ''not the path integral of a vector field on spacetime''.  What she integrated was the ticking of her watch, nothing more.
-The path that A took is called a geodesic.  It is the Minkowski-space equivalent of a "straight line".  But, because of the peculiarities of relativity, it shows the ''longest'' elapsed time (30 years) of all paths, rather than the shortest.  By going to Alpha Centauri, twin B took a shorter path, in terms of the way path length is measured in Minkowski space.
-Very interesting fact:  The path length in Minkowski space, that is, the sum of the tiny distances as measured by the Lorentz/Minkowski metric, ''is the same as the local time''.  That is (assuming you are using the "spacelike convention"), everyone's wristwatch measures path length along their own world line.  The twins simply followed paths of different lengths.  That's all there is to the "twin paradox".  (That is, that's all there is to it, if you analyze it correctly, as I have described above.  Most introductory treatments of relativity don't do it this way.  They just throw the Lorentz transform at you.)
-Now there are a few points about the "twin paradox" that people find confusing.
-First, aren't the laws of physics supposed to be the same for everyone?  What made twin B's watch run slower?  Well, she ''knew'' she was traveling at high speed.  She brought an accelerometer with her in the rocket.  Just as twin B in the parking lot knew she was walking all over the place, turning around and such, twin B in space knew that her world-line was turning, and therefore wasn't a straight line (geodesic).  How did she know?  It takes force to make you deviate from a geodesic (this is really pretty much the same as Newton's laws of motion), and she felt the force.
-Second, how can we analyze the curvature of B's world line?  Here's where general relativity has to come in.  As soon as world lines start to curve, you have to measure their curvature, that is "geodesic curvature".  You get into complicated issues of curved coordinate systems (you're in one now; it's what you perceive as "gravity"!), and curved spacetime, and so on.  And you get into the <math>\Gamma\,</math> symbols, which measure the deviation from a geodesic, and hence the "fictitious forces" that you feel.  This is why general relativity is related to the "twin paradox", in that the space ship followed a curved trajectory and experienced acceleration.  But, to analyze the plain facts of the "twin paradox", all you really need to know is that twin B followed a crooked line.  Place your ruler on a diagonal on the graph of Minkowski space, draw the line out to Alpha Centauri.  Turn the ruler, draw the returning line.  Ignore the impossibly sharp corners.  Use special relativity to analyze the Lorentz transform for each section of B's world line.
-Oh, and to try to answer some of your specific questions, the gravitational field, under either Newtonian or relativistic mechanics, is a conservative field.  Its curl is zero.  If it weren't, conservation of energy would be violated, and we could make a perpetual motion machine by having a planet run around in circles picking up energy.  The "curl=0" aspect of gravity under general relativity is more complicated, because true vector fields have to be on Minkowski space, but it still conserves energy.  When Mercury orbits the Sun, its perihelion precesses because of relativistic effects, but its energy is conserved.
-I'll try to think some more about your black hole question and get back to you.
-[[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 00:00, 4 August 2010 (EDT)
-:Simeon, thanks so much for your long explanation! All of that made sense to me, and cleared up the issue of field as property of space vs. path specific to person vs. curved spacetime. Also, yes, I noticed the similarity between exact differential equations and deriving potential functions from vector fields - the former I studied in Differential Equations and the latter I studied in Multivariable Calculus.
-:So, if I understand you properly, gravity both (a) curves spacetime and (b) creates a conservative field. (I derived (a) from your point: "You get into complicated issues of curved coordinate systems (you're in one now; it's what you perceive as "gravity"!)", and (b) from your point: "the gravitational field, under either Newtonian or relativistic mechanics, is a conservative field.  Its curl is zero.") However, you're saying that if you are in an accelerating reference frame (such as a quickly-spinning merry-go-round) only (a) occurs; there is no field. Is this correct? If so, why is there this discrepancy between the two? [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 22:54, 4 August 2010 (EDT)
-Yes, gravity curves spacetime.  It looks as though you're ready to go to the next level.  It has to do with curved ''coordinate systems'' vs. curved ''spacetime''.  This is why GR is so complicated.  But here goes.
-First, we have to recognize that, at some level, we could say that energy is *not* conserved.  Spacecraft use "slingshot maneuvers" around one planet to gain extra energy on their way to another planet.  I assume you've heard of this.  Cassini used three such maneuvers, twice around Venus and once around Earth.  So what was going on?  If you look at a coordinate system centered on Venus, you would see Cassini come in and go out again, with complete conservation of energy.  But, in a coordinate system fixed around the solar system, Venus was moving, so Cassini came in at low speed and went out at high speed.  We "stole" some energy out of Venus's orbit.  So, to be ''really'' correct, we have to say that gravity is a conservative field in the absence of '''moving''' gravitating bodies.
-But, in the larger sense, energy is conserved.  Always.  Newtonian or relativistic.  (But in relativity, the mass figures into the equation.  Let's not worry about that just now.)
-Now we get to the really cool stuff.  Your comment above suggests that you are ready for it.
-You will feel a "fictitious force" whenever you are in a "curved spacetime coordinate system".  A curved coordinate system would include things like polar coordinates on the plane, or spherical coordinates in 3 dimensions.  But this is 4-dimensional spacetime.  So I'd like you to take my word for this.  On a rotating merry-go-round, your 4-dimensional spacetime coordinate system is curved.  (This doesn't require relativity, special or general, to formulate this.)  The 3-dimensional slice of it is flat, but, when you bring in time, and the spatial coordinates are accelerating, the overall coordinate system is curved.  This creates fictitious forces.  In the case of the merry-go-round, the forces are the centrifugal force and the Coriolis force.  There are also the fictitious "acceleration G forces" in a rocket.  But '''the spacetime itself isn't curved'''.  It's like polar coordinates on the plane.  Yes, the coordinate system is curved, but the plane isn't.  There are Cartesian coordinates on the plane also.  Similarly, an observer on the ground is in a flat coordinate system, and doesn't see any fictitious forces.  He just sees the mechanism of the ride pushing you inward as you go around.  Your recoil against that acceleration is what you perceive as the centrifugal force.
-So the moral of the story would seem to be: you can choose a flat coordinate system that exposes the fictitious force for what it is.  It's a perception from the curved spacetime coordinate system that the observer is operating in.
-But how about gravity?  In the case of gravity, '''spacetime itself is curved'''.  If spacetime (properly called a "manifold") is curved, every coordinate system is curved, and the fictitious force which is gravity is inescapable.
-So your statement "gravity curves spacetime", is exactly correct, but you have to distinguish "curving spacetime" and "curving some particular coordinate system".  The actual curvature involves things called "Riemann's tensor" and "Ricci's tensor".
-The number of people that understand this is way more than the 3 that Arthur Eddington claimed (it was more than 3 but probably less than 10 at the time), but it's still a pretty complicated subject.
-[[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 00:03, 5 August 2010 (EDT)
-:Simeon: Ah, that does make a lot of sense now. Thanks so much for explaining this to me. Hmm, that really is an elegant concept -- wow. Cool! [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 13:50, 5 August 2010 (EDT)
-== Misleading Reference ==
-The counterexample #18 has as an reference:
-''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 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.”''
-That's wrong: From the very beginning of the program, some relativistic effects were taken into account. As Conservapedia states at its article on [[GPS]] the Naval Research Lab in Washington published its report on the ''Initial Results of the NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 Satellite'' in 1978 and  listed the following GPS objectives that have been achieved to date:
-#launch insertion into GPS constellation position
-#demonstrated orbit stability and controllability
-#first cesium frequency standard in space
-#'''verification of relativity theory'''
-But not only did the initial experiments bolster the theory, some relativistic effects have to addressed in general use - in the official specification for the GPS project , i.e., the [http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service Signal Specification], 2nd edition, June 1995, you find the following:
-p. 13: ''To compensate for relativistic effects, the output frequency of the satellite's frequency standard -- as it would appear to an observer located at the satellite -- is 10.23 MHz offset by a Df/f = -4.4647 x 10-18 or a Df  = -4.567 x 10-3 Hz.''
-p. 39: ''The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the control segment two-frequency receivers for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted.  This estimated correction accounts for the deterministic satellite clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as well as for the satellite implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential group delay.  Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction.  Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function.''
-It's true that not '''all''' effects are covered yet: as [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity#GPS_revisited|I stated above]], the quoted article of the ''The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy'' addresses effects caused by the fast movement of some of the GPS-receivers - something which will doubtless be included as the number of fast receivers grows.
-[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:03, 9 August 2010 (EDT)
-== Ehrenfest's Paradox  ==
-This has been resolved and should be considered an apparent paradox. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox here]. [[User:Meatstick|Meatstick]] 11:07, 10 August 2010 (EDT)
-== Momentum issues ==
-It should be explained why numbers 4 and 20 are counterexamples. It isn't adequately explained why these would even present issues with the theory. Actually they look like explanations of part of the theory. [[User:Meatstick|Meatstick]] 11:12, 10 August 2010 (EDT)
-: Number 4: for mass that is infinitesimally small, its momentum goes to infinity under Relativity as its speed approaches the speed of light.  But this is absurd because if the mass is precisely zero rather than infinitesimally close to zero, its momentum is finite at the speed of light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:05, 10 August 2010 (EDT)
-:: Are you sure that this is true? What are you fixing? One formula for relativistic momentum is <math>dp=\gamma v\left( dm \right)</math>. This remains a differential quantity in <math>m</math> as velocity becomes infinite: <math>\frac{dp}{dm}=\gamma v</math>. Fixing energy gives the correct momentum result in the limit as velocity becomes infinite. Maybe the misunderstanding results from taking two limits at once -- the prefactor that depends on velocity becomes infinite while the rest-mass dependence remains linear. [[User:TylerGD|TylerGD]] 13:28, 10 August 2010 (EDT)
-::: Energy does not remain fixed as velocity increases to the speed of light.  You seem to be avoiding the central point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:11, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
-== Wormholes ==
-There seems to be some confusion on the difference between predicting and allowing. General relativity allows wormholes under some conditions. But a lack of observed wormholes or even a lack of wormholes would not be inconsistent with the theory. [[User:TylerGD|TylerGD]] 16:27, 10 August 2010 (EDT)
-== Inability of theory to lead to other insights? ==
-Although this can hardly be considered true, would it be a counterexample to relativity if it were? Couldn't this be a failure of scientists or a testament to the finality of a theory? [[User:TylerGD|TylerGD]] 16:28, 10 August 2010 (EDT)
-: No, because the theory has been around for more than a century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:18, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
-:: Why could this not be a failure of scientists? Anyway, what about the Dirac description of the electron? You can only claim that the theory failed to lead to other insights if you ignore the other insights. [[User:TylerGD|TylerGD]] 10:24, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
-::: Relativity has been better funded than most theories, so it is a defect in the theory that it has yielded so little for the effort expended.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:12, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
-:::: The theory of GR has led to many insights regarding astrophysical phenomena. In particular GR plays an important role in discussing: Neutron Stars, Black Holes, Large-Scale structure, Cosmological Perturbation Theory, Stellar Evolution, Gravitation Waves, Gravitational Lensing, etc. Many concepts in modern astrophysics have been motivated using insight from GR. Additionally many developments in Quantum Field Theory (as used in Condensed Matter and Particle Physics - e.g. predictions of verifiable decay rates, cross-sections and so on), Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics take special relativity as an absolutely fundamental starting point. Many modern day particle accelerators require special relativistic corrections in order to work properly. - 15th August 2010 [[User:NotesTH|NotesTH]]
-::::: NotesTH, you list some unproven dead ends like never-observed "Gravitation Waves," but fail to identify any verified insight.  Indeed, the length of your list highlights its lack of a quality insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:38, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
-:::::: Gravitational waves have not been directly observed, no, but there is significant indirect evidence. Most commonly cited is the [http://www.conservapedia.com/PSR_B1913_16 | Hulse-Taylor binary]. In the linked article it is claimed that a "0.2%" demonstrates the failing of relativity. On the contrary, the fact that a theoretical model for a binary star system could predict a gravitational wave emission that matches observations so extremely closely is extraordinary. The supposed correction term for "galactic acceleration" exists because the initial model is not perfect and nor was it ever meant to be. A 0.2% error is a fantastically small difference and demonstrates that GR provides an extremely accurate and verified prediction for the observed decay of a binary system due to emission of gravitational waves. The authors of the quoted paper state "Accuracy of the test for gravitational radiation damping is now dominated by the uncertainty in the galactic acceleration term. Work now underway should lead to improved accuracy of the pulsar proper motion, and the Sun’s galactocentric distance may be better known in the future. However, we see little prospect for a significant improvement in knowledge of the pulsar distance. Consequently, it seems unlikely that this test of relativistic gravity will be improved significantly in the foreseeable future" - that's simply a statement to the effect that there were some unknown parameters not included in the initial model but nowhere near enough to even remotely claim that the model is being tweaked to fit the theory, not for a 0.2% difference. In addition check out [http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3308446.html?page=1&c=y | article on pulsar tests of GR] [http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3310106.html?page=1&c=y | it's follow up article] and the following review of pulsars and GR: [http://relativity.livingreviews.org/ | Testing GR with Pulsar Timing]. I feel that these articles further demonstrate that this is not an isolated case.
-:::::: You also seem to have neglected the other points. Rather than trying to talk about everything, it would take far too long in one sitting, I'll focus on the particle side of things. I've already stated that modern particle accelerators take into account relativistic effects - e.g. particle energies (using the relativistic energy equation: <math> E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 </math>, synchotron radiation [http://www.lhc-closer.es/php/index.php?i=1&s=4&p=12&e=0 | Synchotron at the LHC], particle lifetimes and so on. All of these require calculations from relativity that have been experimentally measured and verified. For instance all the predicted particle lifetimes and decay rates would require quantum field theories (which require relativity as a relativistic quantum theory) to predict the expected values which can then be matched to observations. We find that they are an extremely good fit to observations. Another example of such a calculation would be in predicting the [http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9810512 | magnetic moments] of particles - theory matches observations extraordinarily well.
-:::::: As another point, just for a further example (could keep going...) we could look at neutron stars or pulsars as objects that are intrinsically relativistic. We can use observations of millisecond pulsars and, for example, compare models of synchrotron radiation (relativistic) to the observations. We find that the relativistic predictions are again in good agreement. Relativity has led to the development of many astrophysical phenomena which are intrinsically relativistic. Without the framework and foundations of relativity such insight would be impossible. The fundamental concepts introduced by relativity are absolutely essential in many, many branches of modern day science with many of the intrinsic relativistic effects being tested to a vast degree. No one claims that GR is the complete theory, it's treated as an effective field theory valid in some low energy limit, but the revolutionary concepts introduced by relativity have led to irrefutable developments in many areas of science. - 15th August 2010 [User:NotesTH | NotesTH]
-== "from the muons' point of view, the Earth would have to be rushing in all directions to meet them"? ==
-This would only be true if the muons shared a reference frame. Which they don't. [[User:TylerGD|TylerGD]] 10:25, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
-: Good point, so that edit was removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 12 August 2010 (EDT)
-== Number 29: the fasted-frame contradiction ==
-Clocks tick fastest in their rest frame. This is unique to the particular clock, but not among all clocks. No contradiction exists here. [[User:TylerGD|TylerGD]] 10:29, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
-: OK, so that edit was also removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 12 August 2010 (EDT)
-== Continuation of "Curl of the gravitational field" ==
-Phyllis (and any other interested parties, of course):  You might want to take a look at the [[General theory of relativity]] page.  I think you will be able to follow much of it.  In particular, the "Coordinate Systems and Spacetime Diagrams" section is along the lines of what I discussed above.  A better name for it might be "how the curvature of spacetime creates gravity".  The "Quantitative Introduction to General Relativity" is a link to a separate page, that might be better named "how matter makes spacetime curve.  The second of those is pretty daunting.  The first was clearly never finished.  A finished version seems to be on Wikiversity.
-Good luck.  [[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 23:54, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
-== Reversion of my edit ==
-I changed
-''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 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.”''
-to
-''Only some, but not all effects of relativity are addressed by the [[Global Positioning System]]: not yet incorporated are the effects for fast moving  receivers of the signal (e.g., satellites), therefore the Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "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.”''
-Andrew Schlafly changed it back, ignoring my edit comment: ''(changing misleading reference - as explained [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity#Misleading_Reference|here]] and [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity#GPS_revisited|here]])''
-'''The current statement of Andrew Schlafly is wrong in at least two ways, as explained several times:'''
-*the [[GPS]] addresses effects of Relativity: From the very beginning, its builders had the Theory of Relativity in mind. [http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA058591] and [http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf]
-*the paper quoted above addresses ''yet another'' effect.
-Perpetuating a wrong statement doesn't seem to be very insightful.
-[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:13, 13 August 2010 (EDT)
-:You don't have to beat us over the head with it, Ron. We already knows that perpetuating wrong statements isn't insightful. We agree with that part of your remarks.
-:The question is whether relativistic effects are (A) big enough to matter or (B) actually being calculated and compensated for by any major GPS.
-:Now, it's interesting that the first builders considered relativity, but what our readers want to know is whether they decided that it made a big enough difference. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:52, 13 August 2010 (EDT)
-::*''don't be rude'' sorry, but please don't mistake my exasperation for rudeness!
-::*''The question is whether relativistic effects are (A) big enough to matter or (B) actually being calculated and compensated for by any major GPS. '' The answer to (A) as well to (B) is a very emphatic '''yes'''. It was given repeatedly and  can be found in the source linked above - or in the section of this very talk page to which I linked in my edit-comment (conveniently repeated a couple of lines above, too). But to spare you the work of actually scrolling backwards, here it is again:
-::::[http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service Signal Specification], 2nd edition, June 1995:
-::::p. 13: ''To compensate for relativistic effects, the output frequency of the satellite's frequency standard -- as it would appear to an observer located at the satellite -- is 10.23 MHz offset by a Df/f = -4.4647 x 10<sup>-18</sup> or a Df  = -4.567 x 10<sup>-3</sup> Hz.''
-::::p. 39: ''The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the control segment two-frequency receivers for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted.  This estimated correction accounts for the deterministic satellite clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as well as for the satellite implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential group delay.  Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction.  Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function.''
-::*This ''Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service Signal Specification'' is quoted on the talk-page of the article for the [[GPS]], too. It is the relevant document for everyone - engineer of physicist - who wants to work with the signals of the GPS.
-::*This quote alone shows that the statement ''Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity.'' is wrong. Plain and simple.
-::*Effects on the GPS became a textbook example for relativity, see e.g., [http://www.colorado.edu/physics/Web/directory/faculty/ashby_n.html Neil Ashby], who writes in [http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=title.html Relativity in the Global Positioning System]:
-::::''There is an interesting story about this frequency offset. At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977), which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be incorporated! A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by general relativity, then the synthesizer could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 10<sup>12</sup> compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10<sup>12</sup>. The difference was well within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii. ''
-::*But you don't have to take this secondary source at face value, you can go to the primary source: [http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA058591 Initial Results of the NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 Satellite], Naval Research Lab Washington, D.C.,  25 May 1978 (Full text: [http://www.leapsecond.com/history/1978-PTTI-v9-NTS-2.pdf pdf]). '''Ever since 1978, relativistic effects are observed and compensated in various ways.''' Or as the abstract states it:
-::::''NTS-2 was successfully launched on 23 June 1977 into a near 12-hour circular orbit. Precise frequency and timing signals are derived from the two cesium frequency standards. '''This paper discusses the launch and preliminary results which include verification of the relativistic clock effect.''' ''
-::*PhyllisS introduced the following quote above:
-::::''The Time Service Department – a department of the U. S. Navy - states: “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 – transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: 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.”''
-:::This is taken from a text of ''Henry F. Fliegel'' and ''Raymond S. DiEsposti''from December 1996 who are talking  about ''another'' relativistic effect than the ones already implemented. Please keep in mind that the Specification above is from June 1995! Only someone who didn't read the text - or didn't understand it - could abuse this quote to invoke the impression that no effects of relativity were implemented in the GPS.
-::*Of course, the information above may be ignored - as it was previously: ''tl;dr''. But actively ignoring facts which contravene a statement just to repeat the statement is a behavior which can only be described in a rude way.
-[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:34, 14 August 2010 (EDT)
-: Ron, the collection of statements above could be construed as easily as ''disproving'' relativity rather than proving it.  Decades after GPS was launched, observers still struggle to match the data to the theoretical predictions.  If some relativistic calculations are included in the synchronization but others are not, then the theory is ''disproved'', not proved by the data.
-: As the [[Theory of Relativity]] page itself explains, the engineers ignored the complex predictions of relativity.  And for obvious reasons: it's easier to synchronize the clocks directly based on communications!
-: Note the complete absence of any identification of a particular physicist or mathematician who supposedly provided the theoretical predictions of Relativity for the engineers.  ''That is because there were no such theoretical predictions of Relativity used in the design!''
-: You might as well claim that clocks in a sporting game are synchronized based on relativity.  That would lack credibility for the same reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:28, 14 August 2010 (EDT)
-:: ''Ron, the collection of statements above could be construed as easily as ''disproving'' relativity rather than proving it.  Decades after GPS was launched, observers still struggle to match the data to the theoretical predictions.  If some relativistic calculations are included in the synchronization but others are not, then the theory is ''disproved'', not proved by the data.'' Effects come in various sizes. When calculating the trajectory of the projectile of a handgun, you don't include the [[Coriolis effect]]. When the bullets get faster and the range gets bigger, you have to. Does this mean that because only some classical effects are included in the first case, it has disproved classical mechanics? Frankly, that's just absurd.
-:: ''As the [[Theory of Relativity]] page itself explains, the engineers ignored the complex predictions of relativity.  And for obvious reasons: it's easier to synchronize the clocks directly based on communications!'' At the article of the [[Theory of Relativity]], a quote is used to bolster this claim: the same quote I've shown to be inappropriate as it is talking about other effects. From Ashby's [http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=title.html Relativity in the Global Positioning System] : '''It has become common practice not to apply such offsets to Rubidium clocks as these are subject to unpredictable frequency jumps during launch. Instead, after such clocks are placed in orbit their frequencies are measured and the actual frequency corrections needed are incorporated in the clock correction polynomial that accompanies the navigation message.''' So, yes, the clocks aren't tempered with any longer - but the relativistic correction are incorporated nontheless.
-:: '' Note the complete absence of any identification of a particular physicist or mathematician who supposedly provided the theoretical predictions of Relativity for the engineers.  ''That is because there were no such theoretical predictions of Relativity used in the design!'' '' No, that's because the any decent physicists can answer the questions ''what's the expected relative and gravitationl time dilation at the satellite''. Einstein, Poincare and some others get the credit for coming up with the necessary formulas, but those who merely apply these formulas aren't mentioned...
-:: ''You might as well claim that clocks in a sporting game are synchronized based on relativity.  That would lack credibility for the same reason. '' The clocks of a sporting game aren't accurate enough to be influenced by non-classical effects. The clocks of the [[GPS]] are - and the effects are much greater in the height and at that velocity of a satellite.
-::Sorry to keep you waiting for this answer: my ISP at home (109.90.0.0/16) is still range-blocked (block ID is #63109), so I can contribute to Conservapedia only irregularly. But I don't think that this bothers you, as you may not like my comments anyhow.
-::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:26, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
-:::Ron, your edits are mostly talk, and the talk is superficial.  I pointed out that no individual has ever been credited, identified or even alluded to for providing the Relativity work that was supposedly included in the GPS design.  Obviously that was because there was no such inclusion of Relativity work.  But you just duck that compelling point and fail to address it in a meaningful way.
-:::The argument that GPS includes some (but not all) relativistic adjustments is even weaker, because that implies that GPS disproves rather than proves Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:36, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
-:::: I agree with RonLar. The GPS clocks are accurate enough for relativity to matter. It is well-known that the system uses relativistic corrections. Otherwise, it would disprove relativity, and where is the paper proving that? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:17, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
-::::: Journals won't publish any data contrary to Relativity; accepted papers have even been forced to withdraw for this reason.  For example, where are the data on the advance of the perihelion of Mercury (which now disproves Relativity) or the binary pulsar (which now disproves Relativity despite the Nobel Prize being given for it years ago).
-::::: The claim that GPS system "uses relativistic corrections" is meaningless.  If some but not all relativistic corrections are used, as discussed above, then this disproves rather than proves Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:46, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
-:::::: If the GPS system uses some but not all relativistic corrections, the article is faulty and should be corrected. I don't know about that astronomical data, but if you have some reliable source saying that it was censored somehow, then I suggest posting it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:48, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
-::::::: If you think Relativity was part of the GPS design, then who did the Relativity calculations?  Who was responsible for that work?  Not only has no one been credited or identified for doing this work, there is not even any suggestion that anyone did such work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
-:::::::: Beats me, I thought GPS was a classified military project. Who did the Newtonian calculations? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:36, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
-::::::::::''I pointed out that no individual has ever been credited, identified or even alluded to for providing the Relativity work that was supposedly included in the GPS design.'' R. Schlafly answered this one very well. May I add that we don't know who actually calculated the trajectories for the [[Apollo project]]. Does this mean that the [[Moon landing]] was a hoax? That's absurd.
-::::::::::''If some but not all relativistic corrections are used, as discussed above, then this disproves rather than proves Relativity.'' Again, does the omission of the [[Coriolis effect]]s - or even tidal forces - when calculating the trajectory of a bullet disprove [[classical mechanics]]? Effects come in various degrees, more about that in the next section.
-::::::::::''Ron, your edits are mostly talk, and the talk is superficial. '' I wouldn't have to do so much talking if you actually read the papers you are quoting from. Even someone who thinks that he can formulate [[Einstein's postulates]] better than Wolfgang Pauli did (''[[Talk:World_History_Lecture_Eleven#Postulates_of_Special_Relativity|I have explained why Pauli's description is inadequate]]'') should sometimes stop and listen to those who at least recomputed the relevant calculations.
-::::::::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:41, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
-::::::::::: GPS was declassified nearly 30 years ago.  It's well-publicized who did the work on the [[Manhattan Project]], but are you claiming that no one knows who supposedly did the Relativity work on GPS because it is top secret????  Please.
-::::::::::: RonLar, your comments lack logic and suggest to me a lack of an open mind about this topic, and I'm not going to spend forever in talk, talk, talk with you about this.  May I ask what your score is on the quiz on [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:09, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
-::::::::::::Though I don't know what this has to do with the subject at hand, here are my answers
-::::::::::::{|class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
-!Question
-!Answer
-|-
-|Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a [[liberal]] one?
-|No.
-|-
-|If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?
-|If it is proved to ''my'' satisfaction, no, I wouldn't.
-|-
-|Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
-|I wouldn't like to admit it - is this resistance? But of course, I would admit it.
-|-
-|Do you resist the possibility that [[Hollywood values]] result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?
-|Resist the possibility? How could one?
-|-
-| Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?
-|Impossible? No. Unlikely? Yes.
-|-
-| When President [[Ronald Reagan]] told Mr. [[Gorbachev]] to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down?
-|Impossible? No. But the speed was surprising!
-|-
-| Did you think, or still think, that the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] ("Star Wars") is impossible?
-|Impossible? No. Hard to realise? Yes.
-|-
-| Do you think that it is impossible that the [[Shroud of Turin]] is authentic?
-|Impossible? No. Very unlikely? Yes.
-|-
-| Do you think that there ''must'' be a purely material-based explanation (such as magnetism) for remarkable [[homing]] and [[migration]] behavior of birds and butterflies?
-|A ''purely material-based explanation'' as opposed to what? Angels hinting the way? So, yes.
-|-
-| Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?
-|Impossible? No. Very improbable? Yes.
-|-
-| Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?
-|Impossible? No. With this test? Yes.
-|-
-| Do you think that evolution  ''must'' have occurred?
-|Must have occurred? No. Has most probably occurred? Yes.
-|-
-| Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r<sup>2</sup>, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r<sup>2.00000001</sup>?
-|Impossible? No. Aesthetically unsatisfying? Yes.
-|-
-| Do you resist admitting that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?
-|No. There were errors, and there were (over-)simplifications
-|-
-| Do you deny that some widely required theories of science may actually impede the progress of science?
-|Generally: Yes, Locally: No.
-|-
-| Do you deny that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?
-|Yes - think of synchronised diving and swimming!
-|-
-| Do you refuse to consider the possibility that "experts" may not have all the answers, and that the [[best of the public]] may have valuable insights to which experts are blind?
-|Generally, the best of the public are called experts, so yes and no.
-|-
-| Do you think that if you read parts of the Bible years ago as a child, you can claim to "have read the Bible" and that you have no reason to read it regularly now?
-|If you read only parts, you didn't read the Bible. Is there a necessity to read it regularly? No.
-|-
-| Do you think that it is impossible for an oppressing society (like [[Communism]] or [[theocracy]])
-to become a [[democracy]]?
-|No.
-|-
-| Do you believe that because the Earth's orbit and rotation are what they are now, they are guaranteed to remain stable for billions of years?
-|No.
 |}
-::::::::::::Looking at the subject of the questions - and at your convictions as stated here on Conservapedia, this quiz seems to measure the possibility to agree with you in any point. That isn't necessarily the same as being open-minded...
+That was your whole argument! Sweet (predictable) irony! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:45, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
-::::::::::::So, I have answered your questions. Could you now answer the following ones? You can regard it as my version of a test of open-mindedness - it shows that you are willing to climb on the shoulders of the giants (to use [[Newton]]'s picture)
-::::::::::::*Who did the Newtonian calculations for the GPS? Please cite a source.
-::::::::::::*In the official Specification of the GPS we read:
-::::::::::::::::p. 13: ''To compensate for relativistic effects, the output frequency of the satellite's frequency standard -- as it would appear to an observer located at the satellite -- is 10.23 MHz offset by a Df/f = -4.4647 x 10<sup>-18</sup> or a Df  = -4.567 x 10<sup>-3</sup> Hz.''
-::::::::::::::::p. 39: ''The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the control segment two-frequency receivers for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted.  This estimated correction accounts for the deterministic satellite clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as well as for the satellite implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential group delay.  Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction.  Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function.''
-:::::::::::::How can you reconcile this with your view that ''GPS is a work of engineering and any timing discrepancies between the satellite and ground are obviously better handled directly by synchronization rather than asking a physicist what he thinks of relativity.'' Please elaborate.
-::::::::::::*Have a look at the paper ''Initial Results of the Navstar GPS NTS-2 Satellite'' by James A. Buisson, Roger L. Easton, Thomas B. McCaskill of tje U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) Washington, D.C. This is the primary source for results of the first GPS mission. The abstract states
-::::::::::::::''NTS-2 was successfully launched on 23 June 1977 into a near 12-hour circular orbit. Precise frequency and timing signals are derived from the two cesium frequency standards. This paper discusses the launch and preliminary results which include verification of the relativistic clock effect.''
-:::::::::::::How do you reconcile this with your statements that ''GPS satellite clocks were not built based on predictions made by the theory of relativity'' or that ''GPS never used the theory of relativity'' - when the very first clocks for the GPS were not only used to verify the effect, but after the initial  phase to conduct such experiments were offset  according to the ''predictions made by the theory of relativity''?  Please elaborate.
-::::::::::::Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:25, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
-::::::::::::please, reconsider the block of my ISP at home (block ID #63109, intended blockee: 109.90.0.0/16)
-My goodness!  Andy and RonLar are ''still'' debating the GPS issue?  You two clearly enjoy debating each other, and I enjoy reading what you have to say.
-As far as the questions above "who did the Relativity calculations?" and "who did the Newtonian calculations?" for GPS, I don't think it's important for the person doing the relativity calculations to have published his work or otherwise made himself known.  The fundamental formulas for the GR time dilation effect under discussion are known to nearly all physics graduate students.  This isn't to say that GR isn't very complicated, but the number of people who understand it is now ''way'' more than 3.  The equation for the relative incremental time dilation/contraction is <math>g/c^2</math> where <math>g</math> is the strength of the gravitational field.  Now the rest of the derivation is straightforward.  I'll take you through it.  In the vicinity of the Earth, we have
-::<math>g = \frac{GM}{r^2}</math>
-so the dilation is
-::<math>\frac{GM}{c^2r^2}</math>
-Because the satellites are so high, we have to take into account the change in strength between the receiver and the transmitter, so we have to do an integration:
-::<math>\int_{R1}^{R2}\frac{GM}{c^2r^2}\ dr</math>
-where <math>R_1</math> and<math>R_2</math> are the radii at the receiving point (6.4E6 meters) and the satellite (20E6 meters).  We have G (Newton's constant) equals 6.7E-12, and M (Earth's mass) equals 6E24.
-The integral is
-::<math>- \frac{GM}{c^2r}\left|\right.^{R_2}_{R_1}</math>
-Plugging in the numbers, we get .477E-9, which is about 45 microseconds per day.  The special relativity correction due to the speed of motion is about 7 microseconds per day in the opposite direction.  The total is about 38 microseconds per day, which is compensated for by adjusting the clock rates.  Without this, the ability of GPS devices to show position would drift by about 10 kilometers per day, which would make them useless.
-The correctness of these equations is independent of whether the people running the system have gone through the derivation, just as the correctness of Maxwell's equations is independent of whether people using electric motors understand those equations.  Scientific theories are not correct or incorrect depending on whether specific people understand them, or the thought processes that went into the design of any particular device.
-A final note to Andy:  Since you and RonLar are clearly enjoying this debate, and clearly consider each other to be worthy adversaries, I'd suggest that you unblock RonLar's IP address, if indeed it is still blocked.  It's the honorable and gentlemanly thing to do.  [[User:Simeon|Simeon]] 10:52, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
-=== Problems with Peer Review ===
-(unindent) Andy and Roger, I appreciate both of your viewpoints, and I'd like to sidetrack this discussion to an important point about peer review and "refereed" journals. It is often argued that since idea X has no papers supporting it, to be found in scientific journals, it therefore is "unscientific", i.e., false (see [[pseudoscience]]). However, we are aware of a significant number of ideas which we know to be true (or at least likely), but which mainstream journals have refused to publish.
-*Ideas on global warming which run counter to the [[AGW]] hypothesis, such as [[sunspots and cosmic rays]] affecting cloud formation: several researchers have published reports showing a much stronger correlation between the sunspot cycle and earth atmosphere temperature than that between the carbon dioxide level and temperature, but ''Science'' spiked the most important such paper on the grounds that it would be "of no interest" to their readers!
-*Intelligent design: The last time a journal editor managed to get an ID paper through peer review, he was forced to resign. The refrain, "No peer reviewed papers on ID" is the strongest (non-scientific) argument against ID, but it's based on [[circular reasoning]].
-Perhaps we need an article on [[Scientific censorship]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:12, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
-== Quote mine ==
-Andy, you take the sentence ''The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "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.”'' as a corroboration  of you statement ''Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity.''
-Even if the sentence stood alone, that would be hardly justifiable: ''the effect of relativity [...] are too small to matter [...] '''for users on or near the earth''' '' shows what the authors intention is: they show that the effects of relativity for users in a distance from the Earth's surface (satellites etc.) and at high speed do matter.
-If you read the article the sentence is taken from (''GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview'' by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti), you'll find on p. 193:
-::''Since GPs receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45&times;10<sup>-10</sup> (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec.''
-So, the authors of this text are well aware of the relativistic effects on the GPS space vehicles. And these effects are big enough to justify a compensation. So what are the ''effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter''? To repeat it again, these are the additional effects on the receivers of the signal, which may be in higher altitude and moving on a higher speed than it was anticipated in the 1970s.
-Including such effects make the GPS more precise, it doesn't disprove the theory of relativity.
-You could have guessed as much from the abstract of the article:
-::''We give and explain in detail the formulas for the relativistic corrections to be implemented in high-speed aircraft, or when using other satellites in connection with GPS, or when using GPS from another satellite. We explain how to use these formulas in various scenarios, give numerical examples, and itemize the pitfall to be avoided by (for example) receiver manufacturers.
-It's an amusing twist that the intended audience for this articles are engineers - people who have no need for the theory of relativity as you have repeatedly made clear.
-So, the sentence you took of the article only ''seemingly'' bolstered your position, in fact, when read in context,  it ''disproves'' your opinion. That is an example for a [[quote mine]].
-I hope that this comment - and my previous ones - which are not superficial at all, but go straight to the source, convince you to unblock my ISP at home (block ID #63109, intended blockee: 109.90.0.0/16).  and to give me the possibility to engage in a meaningful discussion.
-[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:41, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
-==My Great-grandfather==
-This is where I came in ... [[Charles Lane Poor]] was my great-grandfather, and he protested the media love-fest celebrating the theory of relativity on the grounds that it was premature. Based on the accuracy of observations at the time (early 20th century), there just wasn't enough proof that Einstein's idea was correct.
-I'd like this article to take the scientific path of (1) explaining the theory in layman's terms, (2) describing predictions that the theory makes, e.g., observed star positions during a [[solar eclipse]], and (3) comparing predicted to actual values. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:45, 13 August 2010 (EDT)
-: That's very interesting about your great-grandfather, Ed.  As to explaining the theory and discussing claims supporting it, other entries like [[Theory of Relativity]] do that but can always be improved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:30, 14 August 2010 (EDT)
-== Countering the counterexamples ==
-The content of this page aside, I question whether it serves the interests of CP for it to exist in its current form.  CP has been lucky to attract a long string of competent math and physics editors.  Yet once again it finds itself in the position of not having any except ASchlafly and Ed Poor.  Many of these editors were good-faith contributors who wrote a lot of other science articles and generally improved the site, but were eventually driven out after becoming frustrated with this opposition to relativity (and its cousin, the pervasive skepticism about complex numbers).
-:Actually, it was their refusal to write articles on basic topics accessible to our average reader's background that sealed their doom. While Andy is much more tolerant of "advanced" articles on math, etc., I prefer that each article at least '''begin''' with an introduction that even a high school student can understand.
-:I even started to suspect that this refusal went beyond mere inability to empathize with our readership, but could be a deliberate flouting of editorial policy.
-:Bottom line: it's not the topic, but how it's described. No science topic is out of bounds here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:00, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
-Yes, maybe free speech dictates that this page ought to remain.  But when the viewpoints of supporters of relativity have been ''without exception'' removed from the page, is there really free speech at all?  ASchlafly, you remove these views on the grounds that they are not logical.  But their proponents hold them surely as you hold your position, so would it not be reasonable to allow the other side to be posted somewhere, maybe on another page rebutting this one?
-Disbelieving the theory of relativity is really not a ''conservative'' position as such, so I think it's a shame that it has caused CP so much harm.  Indeed, the only person who seems to be convinced by these "counterexamples" is ASchlafly: the public (liberal and conservative) constantly disputes them on the talk page; the media openly mocks this page and hurts the public perception of CP's credibility; even some CP administrators, surely open-minded conservatives, disagree with these positions. (Maybe some editors have expressed agreement.  Such are certainly parodists and should be banned on sight.)
-I think it would be advisable to allow some pro-relativity views back on this site, in the interest of free speech, keeping productive editors, and maintaining credibility. --[[User:KyleT|KyleT]] 11:54, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
-: Kyle, your rant is misplaced and does not warrant a detailed response.  If you would like to set up a new entry along the lines of what you propose, please do so.  It can go point-by-point in trying to rebut the counterexamples.  Good luck doing so, because each counterexample has withstood every attempt to criticize it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:58, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
-Despite my oppositions to the arguments contained on this page, science is about progress through repeatable experimentation. If a theory is found to be incompatible to experimental data, then it is editted or thrown out. A great many papers published on relativity (see websites such as NASA's ADS for peer reviewed papers) contain a great many references to other authors that have aided the writers in their work. These references are peer reviewed and in turn built on the foundations of many older peer reviewed references.
-The references that are presently used in the 'Counterexamples to Relativity' page are of dubious origin.
-. Is not a reference, as it does not contain
-) The author, title, ISBN number, print edition, print date, publisher, and page number where the quote about how relativity misleads the public is contained. It can be corrected if you input these important bits of information, so that people can follow your reasoning.
-. Whilst this is arguably a reference, the website does not contain data as to when it was originally accessed, which may bring into question if the page has been edited by some outsider since your use as a reference. There is also and more importantly the question of MSNs reliability as a reference. As it is not a peer reviewed article, it is written by a non-scientist, with no references to papers written BY NASA scientists on the occurrence claimed within, it is highly unreliable. It would be more precise to actually reference a peer-reviewed paper, or report by an acclaimed institute, which specialise in the sciences explaining or even mentioning the anomalies.
-. Reference 3 is not a reference, as it does not actually refer to a specific source of data. There is no reference to percentages of physics majors that cannot replicate relativity equations. The data quoted is also unreferenced, and should in any case be contained in the body of the article, and not in the references. Finally when mentioning Professor Clifford Will, it is again unreferenced about his 'omitted this in listing tests confirming relativity.' Please reference this quotation by finding it in his articles, and reference it.
-. Reference 4 is not a reference at all, as it is a statement of opinion. I would also point out that you say 'If space were curved, one would never expect the universe as a whole to be almost precisely flat. Yet it is.' But as you can see using the term 'almost precisely flat' you are actually saying that there is a partial curvature in space-time, as the universe would have to be precisely flat, and not almost precisely flat. Again reference peer reviewed papers on the curvature of space-time and perhaps the explanations of the so called 'flatness problem in cosmology' and perhaps look at 'solutions to the flatness problem'.
-. Again this reference does not contain any information as to where you are getting your claims. Perhaps referencing papers from a peer reviewed paper about quantum entanglement, involving the author, title, Journal title or ISBN number, print edition, print date, publisher, and page number.
-. This link actually sends the user to another conservapedia page, and upon inspection then reveals the reference to this page as a BBC website article. Whilst I am a strong fan of the BBC, again as my issue with reference number 2, the data accessed has not been input, and the BBC is also a dubious source for referencing. Please use peer reviewed papers as sites such as BBC/MSN are 'popular' science ie do not explain the actually cause of certain anomalies, and please follow reference guidelines.
-. Again New Scientist is not a peer-reviewed paper and is not a reliable reference source. Whilst the paper goes into more detail that your average website article, it is still written in laymen’s terms, and often actually avoids the mathematical details that are unbendable by opinion. It would be more correct to reference the paper that the scientists within have published on their findings, rather than relying on the NS's analysis of it.
-. Again for reference 7.
-. Excellent! An actual peer reviewed paper in here! However when citing papers, it is more correct to cite the author, title, Journal title or ISBN number, print edition, print date, publisher, and page number rather than the website that the data is taken from.
-. Again this is not referenced. It would be correct to reference Professor Stephen Hawking’s papers on black hole entropy. I believe that there may be some in NASA's that you can find and reference following conventions.
-. This is again not referenced as it does not contain any link to the press release, or papers written by the The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy refuting the claims by scientists that GPS does not rely on relativity. Doing so would be useful to disprove relativity.
-. Reference 12 links back to reference 1, which for some reason starts out scientific, but then the reference it is linked to be reference 1, which at no point actually explains, or even mentions the tensor-stress-energy that is present in relativity. Again using a corrected reference 1 would be more correct than having a reference 12. It would also more good to mention that the scientific part of reference 12 should also be contained in the body of the text, and a reference for the science, such as Einstein's papers should be referenced for the mathematical cases to be seen as correct.
-. Reference 13 is a statement and not a reference. It should be moved into the main body of the text and referenced itself, by citing a peer-reviewed paper.
-. Nature magazine is a reputable peer reviewed source, but as reference no 9, it should be referenced by the author, title, Journal title or ISBN number, print edition, print date, publisher, and page number rather than the website that the data is taken from.
-. Again this is not referenced correctly, as it does not say who the author is, etc. It would actually be honest to point out that in no case in physics, engineering, biology, chemistry, can equations be shone to be perfectly correct, but more often as moderately to highly accurate models, depending on the situation.
-Editing the above errors in referencing will make the page more professional. Vancouver or Harvard referencing are used world wide, and there is no excuse to reference incorrectly. Doing so cheapens the image of the author, and is often than not an insult to the reader.
-Hope this has been helpful. Regards, ARogers
-== A reminder ==
-We are all scientists here: we all seek the truth.
-"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
--- Isaac Asimov
-[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 15:42, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
-:That's misleading. Hardly anyone ever thought the earth was flat, at least not since Western Civilization began. And the earth is so near to a perfect sphere that a globe (atlas) needs no "polar flattening".
-:Don't try to make subtle points: come out and say whatever it is you were trying to say. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:58, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
-== Pioneer anomoly ==
-The first counterexample, "The [[Pioneer anomaly]]", doesn't actually satisfy the list's purpose as stated by "Here is a list of 29 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect."
-Under [[Pioneer_anomaly#Explanations]] there's a list of potential explanations for the anomaly, and while "The theory of General Relativity and the Law of Universal Gravitation could be wrong" is on that list so are drag forces and the presence of unknown celestial bodies. In other words, the anomaly itself could still exist even if general relativity is 100% accurate.
-Maybe "shows" should be changed to "suggests"?
-[[User:Stoob|Stoob]]
-: All of the other items also have explanations that do not contradict relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:28, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
-::I have to agree wholeheartedly - and I can see that you are trying for quite a while to get rid of these distortions, at [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] and [[Theory of Relativity]]. I liked your comment:
-:::{{Quotebox|''All of those statements are completely false. Relativity has no physical discontinuities, logic contradictions, or contradictions from evidence. Relativity promoters are no more liberal than those who promote quantum mechanics, superconductivity, or any other aspect of physics. RSchlafly 10:30, 24 November 2009 (EST) ''}}
-::But seeing how long this is going on, my hopes for any improvements are vanishing... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:23, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
-== If Biblical quotes are allowed... ==
-Since we are allowing quotes from the Bible to undermine Relativity, can I also use quotes from the Quran in the "Counterexamples to the Bible" section? Seems only fair.
-: Are you saying all books are created equal, Pete?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:49, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
-::That is ''precisely'' what I am saying. For example, it seems to me that the page "Christian apologetics" could, with a few alterations, be renamed "Islamic apologetics".  Pete 17 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)
-:::::No, Pete, you have come here assuming the Bible is false, and you're ''pushing'' your religious beliefs here.  I think you better give it up.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:10, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
-::::::I have no religious beliefs. What I am "pushing" is rational thinking and embracing science. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:26, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
+<small>BTW: if you google "action-at-a-distance" "Matthew 15:28", virtually all results are connected with Conservapedia! So, at best, this passage is widely understood only by you as describing action-at-a-distance... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:45, 8 June 2015 (EDT)</small>
-:::::::You are pushing a religious belief, and it certainly is not rational. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:29, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
-What religion am I adhering to? And is it irrational because it is supported by hundreds of years of scientific scrutiny?
+== Relativity Conflicts with Bible ==
-:Belief or non-belief in God is a religious belief.  And which scientists are irrational?  Do they include the thousands of PHd's who believe in God? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:37, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
-::Non-belief is a religion the same way that bald is a hair color. You disregard a million gods; I disregard a million plus one, and I'm irrational? Out of those thousands of PhD holder's, how many have written papers presenting testable evidence of God? The difference between my non-belief and your belief is that my non-belief is not actively trying to undo scientific advancement; my non-belief has never raised millions of dollars to pass laws that tell two loving adults that they are not as good as their heterosexual counterparts; my non-belief has never caused my young son to come home in tears because he was told that he was destined to spend an eternity being tortured because "Your daddy doesn't go to church"; my non-belief ruler (if it had one) has never refrained from intervening in the molestation of a child despite being perfectly capable of doing so.
+The Bible describes [[action at a distance]]. Relativity falsely denies it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:34, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
-::I am sitting now, alone in my study, and there is a quarter on my desk. If this quarter were to flip from heads to tails by itself, I would instantly become a convert to Christianity. As of yet, the quarter has not moved. Either there is no god, or he does not care about saving me enough to give me even the slightest bit of evidence. Now, absence of proof does not proof there is no god; however, the silence has been awful hard to ignore. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:54, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
+:Andy, on March 19, 2015 you wrote: "''please discuss first before repeatedly deleting something''". Therefore, I laid out my argument at [[#Action-at-a-distance_according_to_the_Bible]]. I waited for two days, but you didn't address my points. Thus, I thought that you had conceded this point, and I deleted it from the list.
-:::I don't expect you to change in an instant if that quarter flips by itself, but here you are, in our site, knowing we are Christian, and you are willfully and deliberately pushing your non-beliefs here.  A wolf amongst the sheep.
+:Now, I'd say it is your turn to ''discuss first before repeatedly adding something''! Merely repeating your point of view isn't a discussion! So, please address my points above. For your convenience, a short summary:
-:::And there is a God, and He does care enough about you to send His Son; the evidence for it is historical and documented.  Whether or not you choose to accept Him is up to you, but I don't think He's going to give into a demand for a test just because you feel like it.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:01, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
+::*Jesus never said that he made something happen instantaneously over a distance
+::*The witnesses at that time couldn't know whether something happened instantaneously or with a delay.
+:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:39, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
+:BTW: take a look at [[Talk:Action at a distance#Biblical Example ]] --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:09, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
-:::Paul, atheists don't build hospitals, don't have championship teams, and don't give much to charity.  Atheism is a self-centered ideology that leads individuals and societies to self-destructive rather than selfless conduct.  Even your quarter example is self-centered.  Atheists are also censors of classroom prayer, even when everyone in the classroom wants to pray.
+I don't understand the connection between this and moral relativity. Could someone please explain?
+:My understanding of the link is that they both simply pertain to the general notion of [[relativity]], simply put, which can be applied in a way that allows the observer to see a steep slippery slope, if one accepts the notion that all things are relative. --[[User:Hacnocteestlucet|Hacnocteestlucet]] ([[User talk:Hacnocteestlucet|talk]]) 21:04, 5 December 2015 (EST)
+== Einstein’s Relativity and Relativism: Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a powerful argument for absolute truth.  ==
-:::There's no free lunch.  Selfish ideologies aren't getting away with anything.  Over time, the objective individual wakes up to where the road of atheism takes him, and he finds another road.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:08, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
+Please read the article [http://evangelicalfocus.com/blogs/1297/Einsteins_Relativity_and_Relativism Einstein’s Relativity and Relativism: Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a powerful argument for absolute truth.] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:55, 11 February 2016 (EST)
-::::Aren't Warren Buffet and Bill Gates atheists? They've donated billions to charity, I think more than a third of everything they earned during their lifetimes. Definitely no championship teams though... [[User:Stoob|Stoob]]
+Please unlock this page. I wish to add a picture to the article. [[User:Timematter|Timematter]] ([[User talk:Timematter|talk]]) 21:34, 4 May 2016 (EDT)
-:::::Gates' wife is a devout Catholic, I think, and ''together'' they've given money to a foundation they control.  I'm not aware of their building any hospitals.  Ditto for Buffet.  Moreover, their wealth is just a drop in the bucket of the overall wealth of atheists, very little of which goes to atheists.
+== The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51. ==
-:::::What's another name for a self-centered, uncharitable person who censors classroom prayer?  An atheist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:35, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
+Let us make a thought experiment: imagine a glass fiber cable between Cana and Capernaum (some 90km). In Cana, the master switches on a light, in Capernaum, this is observed via cable by his servant. The servant than rides to Cana to discuss with his master whether he saw the light in the same instance it was switched on - or 1/10,000 second later.
-::::Andy, there are atheists doing charitable work. The relatively small work being done is easily attributable to atheists being cast out from society for millenia, and only recently gathering ground and forging a community. See [http://www.redcross.org/] [http://foundationbeyondbelief.org/] [http://www.aclu.org/] [http://www.amnesty.org/] [http://www.eff.org/about]. There are many others, and the number and size of these organizations continues to grow. You may want to believe that atheists lack charity, but the world simply must disagree with you. [[User:AAckermann|AAckermann]] 11:03, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
+What is the result when both are equipped with the best sun-dials available?
-== Black Holes are High Entropy ==
+Hilarity!
-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)
+--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 03:54, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
+== Consider removing point #1 ==
-== Searchlight Paradox ==
+Consider removing #1, because the sources it cites (which are the National Geographic and the Scientific American) are not scientific peer-reviewed journals, and cannot be considered as actual scientific evidence. Neither of these actually cite an
+Also, specifically concerning the Scientific American, it does not actually state a specific computer model that has run on some computer. I had to do some digging around, but I found [https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13316 this article] which I think is what these
+articles are referring to. Anyway, even if this is so, this is not a valid counterexample to the Theory of Relativity because a computer model or simulation cannot necessarily falsify what is in the real world. For example, if this simulation is in ''any way'' not 100% accurate
+to real life, then it is not necessarily a truly accurate representation of reality. Furthermore, this could be due to the fact that according to the aforementioned article, the simulation was conducted at a limited resolution of cosmic data, and thus, does not simulate small particles
+such as atoms and small molecules.
-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.
+The article itself (or rather, what is under the "Abstract" section of the article) even states: "It yields a reasonable population of ellipticals and spirals, reproduces the observed distribution of galaxies in clusters and characteristics of hydrogen on large scales, and at the same time matches the ‘metal’ and hydrogen content of galaxies on small scales."
-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.
+This means that Chaos theory (a branch of mathematics which concerns outcomes being highly sensitive to initial conditions) could explain that due to a lack of atomic simulation of this model, it necessarily means that an exact replica of our universe is not contained within that computer simulation due to it not simulating our universe exactly how it is in the real world. Therefore, this model's density of black holes per whatever unit of measure is not sufficient evidence as a counterexample of the Theory of Relativity by Einstein because that computer simulation is not more accurate than Einstein's calculations based on Relativity.
-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.
+Not only that, but I fail to see where it is mentioned in the article the popularity of black holes or a citation of Einstein's calculations for it as well. So the argument does not even have substantiation either.
-I await the removal of this counterexample. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:07, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
+==Einstein was an idiot==
+[https://youtu.be/Aucbv8hoEEQ?t=429 Einstein Was An Idiot]. Interesting discussion. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]]</sup> 02:36, January 16, 2022 (EST)

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity"

Latest revision as of 07:36, January 16, 2022

Contents

Notice of Pending Revision

Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light.

Previous arguments

A few more things

Recent reversion

Neutrinos do not travel faster than light

Biblical Examples

The roundness of the sun

Gravitational waves found

Lede quote

Removing material

27. RE:PSR B1913+16

Force acting on a mass

#47: Historical evidence suggests that the year used to have 360 days. However, Relativity cannot explain how the orbit or the rotation of Earth could have changed enough to give us the current 365.24-solar-day year.

Protect this page

Set back to version of 1 December -- explanation

Inertia

Parodist

Action-at-a-distance according to the Bible

John 4:46-54

Matthew 15:28

Matthew 27:51

Widely Understood

Andy, you are missing the point of this section

Relativity Conflicts with Bible

Einstein’s Relativity and Relativism: Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a powerful argument for absolute truth.

The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.

Consider removing point #1

Einstein was an idiot

Navigation menu

Search