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 ==
-----
-== 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)
-:::::::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?
-: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.
-::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)
-:::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.
-:::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)
-:::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.
-:::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)
-::::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]]
-:::::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.
-:::::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)
-::::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)
-:::::The world disagrees with you in one respect, AAckermann.  Since 1963 when a loud-mouth atheist named Madalyn Murray O'Hair used her hate to remove prayer from public schools, we have had consistent and constant attacks by atheists and like-minded individuals against Christians through legislation, speeches, books and other published material, film and television, as well as personal threats, intimidation, and violence.  That is mainstream atheism in action here, and I would hardly call that "charitable." [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:13, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
-::::::Prayer is still permitted in schools; Any child can, at their choosing, pray as they feel. All that has changed is the school must not direct it. Just as I'm sure you wouldn't want your children forced to pray for Allah, we must not force children to pray for God, or any other deities. [[User:AAckermann|AAckermann]] 11:31, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
-:::::::And you're wrong once again.  A kid begins a prayer, an atheistic parent gets mad and sues the school district with the help of the ACLU; that fact alone is in the newspapers in some part of the country at least once a week.  We're not going to make atheism look good here, AAckermann, not just because doing so is against the site's policies, ''but because doing so is an impossibility.''  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:38, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
-::::::::Please cite any case where that happened. The ACLU defends human rights, not anti-Christian concepts. [[User:AAckermann|AAckermann]] 11:43, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
-:::::::::You know full-well what I'm talking about, AAckermann; you've seen the citations and the news about the subject too many times yourself.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:49, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
-::::::::::In answer to the above troll's "request" for a cite backing up what I said about prayer and the ACLU's attempts to stop it, how about 22,000 of them: [http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=aclu+sues+school+prayer&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=93c3c78db929eee0].  If the ACLU was so bent up about defending human rights, they would be defending the rights of anyone to engage in prayer anytime, anywhere, as per the First Amendment.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:01, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
-:Karajou, I'm not sure a list of google results is an accepted citation...however, playing along, I looked at the first result. It was about how a school was required to take down a banner that asked "Our Heavenly Father" to watch over them. Are you saying, Karajou, that if a school hung a banner that said "Praise be to Allah", you'd be fine with that? Side note, in your "citation", I noticed, a couple down, that the ACLU also sued a Twin Cities school for promoting Islam. Are you outraged about that?
-:AAckermann, I've noticed from posting here for a while, that any time you request proof or a citation, you get responses in line with "You know full-well what I'm talking about" and little else.
-:PS Karajou, I have a "citation" for you: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=andy+schlafly+hates+kittens&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=634be7f9c98ae18c
-:Mine has 27,000 results. More true, then, yes? (Mr. Schlafly, I mean no disrespect with that link. I was just using it as an illustration. I'm sure you love kittens as everyone does :) [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 14:19, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
-(unindent) A lot of what Ackermann was talking about is unrelated to the purpose of this page, which is to help contributors improve the article ... not to debate [[school prayer]]. Maybe we can cut and paste samo of the above to one of our [[Conservapedia:Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:30, 20 August 2010 (EDT)
-== Black Holes are High Entropy ==
-Point 16 states that black holes are highly ordered, thus possess low entropy. However, black hole entropy is understood to increase as expected by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: [http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v7/i8/p2333_1]. The citation refuting a similar proposition by Stephen Hawking is also not a citation, but an assertion by some individual. It would be more effective to cite peer-reviewed research showing black holes do not possess entropy through these mechanisms. [[User:AAckermann|AAckermann]] 14:47, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
-== Searchlight Paradox ==
-Number 30 is a misunderstanding of relativity. The essence of the argument is that the "spotlight (that is, where the light ends)" will move faster than the speed of light, moving from point A to point B faster than the speed of light. However, the inaccuracy in this thinking is that the light at point A and point B are not the same - point A and point B share no common photons.
-Think of it like a water hose. You are spraying water onto the lawn. Then you turn around, 180 degrees, and spray on the street. Did the water on the lawn move to the street? No, they are two different sets of water.
-Also, there is no violation in the transmission of information, because point A and point B are not communicating with each other - the searchlight is communicating with point A, and THEN with point B.
-I await the removal of this counterexample. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:07, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
-: I agree with this general sentiment. There is a mistake in reasoning in the article that even if we suppose that the light source was a movie projector for instance. Two observers that are located the same distance away from the light source would receive the same information, they have not communicated with each other in any way. Imagine a light source that radiates in two polar directions, and two observers located 1 light year away from the source. Both would receive the information in 1 year. Using the naive reasoning in the article this constitutes a breakdown in causality because the observers are two light years apart, however they clearly have not communicated with each other and have simply received the same information from a single source. There is no way for observer A to confirm that observer B has received the information. You can argue that they agreed that they will be in the same location, but this act of agreement requires transmission of information (telling the other where to wait) along a causal channel, and you have gleaned no NEW information about the other observer, all the information you have gleaned has come from causal channels.  This same reasoning applies to the sweeping light source.I would remove the argument, but since I am a new user I would prefer to wait for someone who has more say in the community--[[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:50, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
-:: OK, thanks for the good points.  We are [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open-minded]] here and I've stricken that particular counterexample based on the logic above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
-== Different values of Inertia ==
-For counter-example 19, I'm not quite sure I understand.  The value of the inertial mass (m) is constant for a given physical body undergoing any sort of motion, whether parallel or perpendicular to the observer's motion.  I don't want to remove this as an counter-example to relativity before I understand what the author meant.  Could this be clarified for me?  Thanks.
-: The rest mass is the same. I think Lorentz discovered what he called the longitudinal and transverse mass in around 1900. It was experimentally testing in around 1902. Einstein uses similar terminology in his 1905 paper. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2010 (EDT)
-== counter example 12 ==
-counter example 12, referring to the W13 magnetar does have an explanation that, while not proven, or provable, is at least consistent with relativity.  It is explained here http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1008/20magnetar/ one possible way it could have formed. [[User:Vikten|Vikten]] 16:38, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
-: The attempt to reconcile the W13 data with relativity is highly speculative, unproven, and seems implausible to me.  Almost anything can be reconciled with any theory if enough speculation about additional causes or forces is allowed, but that process is hardly scientific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:45, 20 October 2010 (EDT)
-::It is less about trying to reconcile it with relativity as it is to basic astrophysics.  More than that, if in fact the speculated method of formation is false, the resulting fallout would be far more reaching than simply overthrowing relativity.  It would cast doubt on much of modern physics (which obviously are done with relativity in mind) but even many other possible interpretations of space and time, such as the pre-relativity Eddington Paradigm.  This is not so much a counter example to relativity but an unknown in physics as a whole, and as more information is gained about the W13 Magnetar, if the above speculated method of formation is found to be false, we will see a revolution of physics surrounding its study.  I don't think it should be removed as a counter example, but perhaps clarified to show that it does not fit the traditional method of magnetar formation, and that other hypothesis have been unproven, and that it could have far-reaching effects, not just relativity.[[User:Vikten|Vikten]] 18:48, 27 October 2010 (EDT)
-:::The basic problem posed by #12 is that Relativity predicts a [[black hole]] but there is none.  Classical physics does not predict a black hole.
-:::But that is beside the point.  The issue is whether Relativity is true or not, regardless of other theories.  It's difficult to find the correct theory as long as people cling to an incorrect one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:54, 27 October 2010 (EDT)
-== Tachyons ==
-Not sure if this belongs here, but Tachyons seem to violate relativity, (while they do fit the math, strictly) They are quite confusing, and even under the most scientifically liberal interpretations, these hypothetical particles are somewhat self contradictory.
-http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html[[User:Vikten|Vikten]] 19:46, 19 October 2010 (EDT)
-:Thanks for mentioning this, and I'll investigate it further.  Please feel free to edit the content page for this as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:47, 20 October 2010 (EDT)
-== John 4:53 ==
-As Jesus didn't state that the healing happened instantaneously, but we have only the report of the nobleman who spotted the coincidence, the sign could have happened
-#instantaneously
-#with the speed of light
-#with the speed of sound (the ''word'')
-So, this is no example of an [[Action-at-a-distance]]!
-[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:04, 18 March 2011 (EDT)
-: No, the point of the story is that it happened at the same moment.  The modern translation should reflect that obvious meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:05, 18 March 2011 (EDT)
-:::''No, the point of the story is that it happened at the same moment. The modern translation should reflect that obvious meaning.''
-:::''Obviously'', God could have created the Heavens and the Earth in a single moment. He chose to take six days. How do we know this? Because ''He'' told us so, not a mortal. ''Obviously'', the Lord Almighty can't be exhausted. But he chose to rest for the seventh day. Again, we know this as ''He'' told us so Himself.
-:::We don't know which time the Lord chose to take to perform the sign of the son. ''Obviously'', it could have happened in an instant. Or a heartbeat. Or with the speed of light or sound. The Lord doesn't tell us His (and not ''our''!) choice. We only have the word of a mortal man, who measured the period up to an hour: the ''seventh hour'' is between 12:30 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. - even between 12:35 p.m and 1:45 p.m. in the summer. This reminds me of  Galileo's trials to measure the speed of light with the help of a servant and two shuttered lantern...
-:::I'll revert your reversion of my edit - and perhaps I'' get blocked for this, though I am giving ample reason for my acts. Thus you could avoid to address my points, and ignore them like quite a few   arguments against items in the list of counterexamples. As Rschlafly said: ''All of the other items also have explanations that do not contradict relativity.''  But  I hope that you just answer the following questions:
-:::*Do you have any justification for your translation other than '''the Lord ''could'' have done this in a single instant'''? As I mentioned above, the Bible is about what God did, and so your translation shouldn't be be about what God ''could'' have done, neither.
-:::*Above, you wrote: ''The instantaneous healing is central to the purpose of the event.'' and ''the point of the story is that it happened at the same moment''. How so? Why has the healing to be spontaneous, when the creation of the world took six days?
-:::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:36, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
-::::For a moment, I won't address the problematic translation of John 4:53. Instead consider the following little story:
-::::::''When I was in  New York, I visited a small broadcasting studio. I was there at the begin of the broadcasting of the 1 o'clock news - and it started at 1 o'clock. The next day, I told a friend about this - and he said, that he had watched this very beginning of the news show at 1 o'clock, but in Danbury, Connecticut, roughly sixty miles away. I questioned whether he was sure of this - and he said that he had looked not only at his watch, but also at the sundial in his garden.''
-::::Does this story disproves the Theory of Relativity?
-::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:55, 21 April 2011 (EDT)
-==Refutations & Edits==
-The following are refutations of points made in the article by user Gresavage, and is meant for article improvement.  Discuss one at a time.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
-:seeing no further discussion from the administrators on these points which have already been previously discussed in great detail on this talk page, i am going to edit the page. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 18:50, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
-::I'm going to refute all of the "counterexamples" which incorporate quantum interactions. This is due to the fact that it is generally accepted that GR does not account for them. It is a mathematical model that applies to a certain range of values. The values encountered in QM and the ones on the much larger scale at the other end of the spectrum are not within the domain of GR. If GR did in fact agree with QM in it's predictions of quantum interactions, then we would have found the elusive "unifying gravitational field theory". Which of course we have not. There is in fact no unifying field theory. comparing GR and QM, is very much akin to trying to compare principles of circuits to principles of newtonian mechanics (F=ma). Yes, there is some overlap, but these two things deal with, and are born from, completely different domains; yet are proven to exist due to the same thing (electromagnetism). If i were to try to solve for voltages and currents in a mechanics problem, naturally i would have wrong answers. This does not imply that either of them is incorrect. As i have said, to properly determine whether a theory is accurate, one must see if it is true everywhere in it's domain. So far, GR has been proven to be true everywhere in it's domain. If that is not the case, then we limit the domain solely to where it is true. This is a very well known principle of mathematics. Take, for instance, the function <math>f(x)=1/(2-x)</math>; and lets say that we are using this function to try to explain a graph, (lets say the graph of: if U(x)={(2+x)/(4-x<sup>2</sup>) for -∞<x<-2 ∪ -2<x<2 ∪ 2<x<∞; 3 for x = -2 ;  5 for x = 2}. We would find that the graphs are nearly identical. However there are two hitches. The first is that the graphs are NOT identical, this would be the metaphor between GR and the actual universe, as well as QM and the actual universe. The graphs are only mostly identical, in fact, they are so identical that the percent error goes to 0 as the limit of x → ∞. This does not mean that <math>f(x)</math> is a bad representation of <math>U(x)</math>, it means that it is not the exact one. Lets say that at QM says that for x=2 <math>h(x)=5</math>, and for x=-2 <math>h(x)=3</math>. This theory of QM would be a good model for the universe where GR falls short. This also does not mean that GR or QM is a bad model. QM being true at some points does not mean that GR is generally inaccurate, just as QM being true in ALL points does not mean that GR is generally inaccurate. In fact, both models can be true independently, as well as simultaneously (however they are not true simultaneously in this example).(this metaphor, however, is not a good example of the true relationship between the universe and QM). Finally, to say that GR is not a good model for the universe because at one point, or even a range of points, it is inaccurate, would be an erroneous statement. To say that because GR is a bad model at 2, and/or -2, because it does not match exactly what the universe (<math>U(x)</math>) is doing, it then must be a bad model everywhere else, would be erroneous. Also, to say that solely because <math>f(x)</math> is not defined at x=2, it must be a bad model of the universe, is incredibly erroneous, as it is a near perfect model everywhere else! And in fact, this is the relationship that GR shares with the universe, and QM. Where GR leaves off (is not defined/is an inaccurate model) is exactly where QM picks up, and is an accurate model. That is not to say, that because QM is true where GR is not true, GR as a whole must be an erroneous theory, is preposterous. And to think otherwise is an incredible misunderstanding of math, physics, logic, and the universe as a whole. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 20:12, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
-I intersperse my rebuttals below:
-#Header:Theory of relativity: A set of mathematical relations showing that mass and energy come from equivalent space curvatures that can appear differently in different observational situations. NOT "a mathematical system that allows no exception". The statement is ambiguous and false. Requires rewording Citation: http://www.ccel.us/gange.glossary.html; http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory%20of%20relativity.
-:No explanation requires no rebuttal.  There are no exceptions to mathematical truths, such as 2+2=4.  If one exception is found, then the mathematical statement is disproved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
-::2+2 = 0, 2+2=1, 2+2=3, 2+2=10, 2+2=11, 2+2=100, 2+2= and 2+2=4 are all true. They can not be simultaneously true. Furthermore, truth is relative to the constraints you put on the system in which you are observing. which is why 2+2 = 0, 2+2=1, 2+2=3, 2+2=10, 2+2=11, 2+2=100, and 2+2=4 are all true. There are some mathematical expressions that can be violated. Mathematical systems therefore do allow exceptions. And furthermore, when you try to apply GR outside of the scope of the system over which it is defined, it breaks down. It's just like trying to plug in x = 2 to the function <math>f(x)=1/(2-x)</math>. Are you therefore going to say that f(x) must not be true since it is not defined over 2, which is not in it's natural domain? [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 20:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
-#Header:"It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."|This talks about social relativism and is thereby irrelevant. Furthermore, the assertion that it is heavily promoted by liberals is not cited. You would require that there be some study showing that a tenant of liberalism is to promote the theory of relativity. Should be removed. Citation: No citation needed → irrelevant.
-:Self-evident statements hardly require a citation.  But see Tribe's law review article, which he credits the president for supposedly helping with it, for one example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
+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.
-::it's no matter, social relativism ≠ General Relativity. You are trying to imply that they do, which is false by their definitions. FURTHERMORE self evident statements is a nonsensical term. And i would hardly say that that statement is self evident. it is not intuitively obvious that a tenant of liberalism is to believe in either social relativism or general or special relativity. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 20:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
+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.
-#Header: "any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.". Does this mean that only examples that fully falsify relativity be included? If so the list should be revised.
+The specific changes are:
-:Your statement seems to have a grammatical error and I can't make sense of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
+*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?''''
-::excuse me i mean to imply that (from my recollection) none of the counterexamples tautologically prove GR to be false. I want to know whether this page should include only Counterexamples that can do that, or if we are just going to include insignificant "roadblocks" like the ehrenfest and twin paradoxes, which are easily explained by GR. In fact they are included in entry level courses in GR. No scientist in the last century, who has been well or even slightly versed, in the theory of GR understand these to be true paradoxes, As there is an explicit solution. Simply because one may not be able to comprehend the answer does not mean it's wrong. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 20:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
+*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.)
-# Counterexample 1: This is not a counterexample of relativity and "sounds like global warming?" is pejorative speculation. it is furthermore false. gravitational waves have been indirectly detected. Should be removed.  Citation: http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:147982:1/component/escidoc:147981/AdvSR-43-1049.pdf
+[[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.
-:No, gravitational waves have not been detected in a meaningful way.  Every search for them has been a failure, and a waste of money.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
+--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:26, 17 December 2011 (EST)
-::Indirectly detecting them is not meaningful? many other scientists and i would beg to disagree. The same failures and indirect detection has been instrumental in discovering many of the waves that make up the EM spectrum. IN FACT, indirect detection of EM waves is the reason we know the curvature, and change in temperature of the universe. It is like being inside a boat with no way out in a choppy ocean, but not being able to look out and see the waves. You indirectly detect them using your inner ear, and balance. But simply because you can not directly put yourself in the water or are unable to develop a device, given your own technological knowhow, with which to detect the waves, does not mean that they do not exist. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 20:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
+::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)
-# Counterexample 4: "If you please, Mark, try quoting the actual scientific journal instead of the New York Times. Wikipedia is also not a source. Karajou 21:31, 5 May 2011 (EDT)" if the new york times is not a source (which it is not) then neither is msnbc. Please recite!
+:::Sorry, just noticing these comments now.  Let's discuss before removing insights from entries.
-:Not sure what the point of the objection is here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
+:::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.
-::I was quoting karajou when he dismissed news articles as sources, msnbc is not a source and thus must be recited. There is no other way to explain it [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 20:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
+:::Item 26 remains unrebutted.  Relativity has produced nothing of value.
-# Counterexample 5: This is not a citation. Requires recitation
+:::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)
-# Counterexample 5: this is not true. Citation: http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i1_en/; http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/grel.html; http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1811v1.
-: No explanation requires no rebuttal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
+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)
-::The explanation is the citation. Read the articles and you will have your explanation. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 20:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
+*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)
-# Counterexample 6: This is clearly falsified by NgSmith and Toph in the talk forums. Citation: http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity#Counterexample_4_.28limiting_behavior.29
+[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:36, 31 December 2011 (EST)
-: No explanation requires no rebuttal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
+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)
-::The explanation is the citation. Read the articles and you will have your explanation. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 20:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
-# Counterexample 7: Falsified by NgSmith. Citation http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html; http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity#Point_4
+I deleted #10 and #27. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:06, 1 January 2012 (EST)
-: No explanation requires no rebuttal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
+[[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)
-::The explanation is the citation. Read the articles and you will have your explanation. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 20:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
-# Counterexample 8: It is common knowledge that general relativity incorporates a "flat universe". Citation: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm
-: Does relativity incorporate Newtonian mechanics also???  A flat universe is contrary to the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
+:''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)
-::No it is not, i beg you to please read the citations. I put them there for a reason and your blatant disregard for them is becoming tiresome. Relativity incorporates principles of newtonian mechanics. However we understand most of newtonian mechanics to be a poor model for explaining things on the scale of which GR is talking. Just like GR is a poor model for the behavior of quantum particles. and newtonian mechanics is even worse. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 20:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
-# Counterexample 9: General relativity is to Quantum mechanics as Force equations without friction are to ones that consider friction. However, i can not find valid enough sources to edit this counterexample.
+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)
-:No; [[quantum mechanics]] confounds and disproves relativity, as in the [[action-at-a-distance]] that exists in QM but is denied by relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
+== Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light. ==
-::as i have said before, quantum mechanics is a completely different scale than GR. GR is a poor model for quantum interactions. but it is a great model for most other things in the universe. I also could not find a source to back up that refutation, i was hoping that someone, with a better understanding of both GR and QM to provide them. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 20:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
-# Counterexample 10: (action at a distance) entirely false. Citation: http://books.google.com/books?id=mbUGZYzs878C&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=relativity+action+at+a+distance&source=bl&ots=Sp3i4fEcfB&sig=T10swXL7u39VubURAXKuY1U66_Q&hl=en&ei=y1LKTbmnKIK_gQf7k_iDBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=relativity%20action%20at%20a%20distance&f=false
+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:
-: No explanation requires no rebuttal.  OK, this is getting tiresome.  Please explain your very best points and we can discuss them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
+{|
-::No sir, you are getting tiresome, please read the citations as they are incorporated for a very specific purpose. [[User:Gresavage|Gresavage]] 20:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
+!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?
-#Counterexample 12: gravitons are not part of general relativity this is general knowledge. Citation: http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0322023.htm
+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 ...
-#Counterexample 14: (W13) This is possible in general relativity. Furthermore, solely because one scientist can't explain it, does not mean it is not explainable, in fact someone did provide an explanation. Citation: http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1008/20magnetar/
+so will the induction take place or not...??
-#Counterexample 15: Irrelevant, even if the theory didn't lead to insights it does not detract from it's validity. However GR does have insights. Citation: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9810512; http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/people/sar049/papers/JMS_17.pdf
+if induction does not take place then the principle or relativity goes wrong......
-#Counterexample 16: This is completely irrelevant, the standard mass of the kilogram has no bearing on the validity of general relativity because it is measured from a physical object and thus subject to variance. Whereas a standard measure of a meter, second, candella and others are absolute and unchanging definitions not subject to change
+|-
-#Counterexample 17: (uniform temperature) Requires better citation. (primary source)
+!DaleSpam
-#Counterexample 18: (space should be smooth) Requires better citation. (primary source)
+|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.
-#Counterexample 19: This does not falsify the theory as a whole, or even majority, rewording should be considered as well as a better source.
+|-
-#Counterexample 21: Citation required as well as disambiguation. Are you implying that GR predicts that it should be possible for black holes to "congeal" into existence?
+!A Dhingra
-#Counterexample 22: This is full of falsehood and speculation. Citation: http://www.phys.uu.nl/~prokopec/JeroenBurgers_gw_talk2.pdf
+|... can't it be just a thought experiment like many other paradoxes available....
-#Counterexample 23: Neither true nor relevant, and also reiteration of a previously stated point. Whether or not you can save lives has no bearing on the validity of a theory.
-#Counterexample 24: (anisotropic mass) Citation desperately needed. Anisotropic mass is understood and accepted outside of GR. Citation: http://academics.hamilton.edu/physics/smajor/StudentR/ben_f2004.pdf
-#Counterexample 25: Citation needed. As well as the fact that general relativity breaks down at the quantum level. Just like newtons equations break down at the quantum level, and at the level of lets say, planets even, like for instance mercury. That does not mean it's not a valid theory for it's frame of reference. In fact it's commonly accepted that GR doesn't work at that size. (I believe) REGARDLES... CITATION NEEDED
-#Counterexample 26: (conservative field) Citation needed. GR does not violate the definition of a conservative field. Where are you getting this conclusion?
-#Counterexample 27: (Ehrenfest paradox) What? This does not disprove relativity. Citation: http://www.wbabin.net/physics/hynecek7.pdf
-#Counterexample 28: (Twin Paradox) http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/twins.html
-#Counterexample 29: The citation clearly explains how the clocks would not be off DUE to relativity, and explains the mechanism. So your point is disproved by your citation
-#Counterexample 30: (Aether/higgs field) Citation Required!
-#Counterexample 31: The dimension is not time, it is analogous to time though. Citation: http://www.ugr.es/local/jagalvez/pdfpapers/A18.pdf; http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Timelike.html
-#Counterexample 32: Speculation and needs citation
-#Counterexample 34: Simply because we can't fully solve them does not detract from it's validity. This is like saying, because ancient egyptians didn't know how to do laplace transforms, laplace transforms must be false. The inability of people to fully comprehend something does not mean it is not valid.
-#Counterexample 35: Not a counterexample. Citation: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_pole_paradox.htm; http://astro.ucla.edu/~kevinhainline/relativity.html
+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)
-== Partial Removal ==
+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)
-I do not know why this page exists. General Relativity does not contradict the conservative ideals of this country. However, instead of refuting all the points by links (this has not worked in the past), I will explain a few of the simpler mistakes on my own. Although this page should be taken down, I realize that you would never allow me to do that. So I recommend that you at least take down these:
+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 ...
+|}
-counterexample 6:
+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.
-Even an infinitesimal mass cannot get to c. Also, a massless particle has to go at c, since if it went slower, it would have no energy and thus not exist, which is a contradiction. Therefore, there is no discontinuity.
-counterexample 7:
+[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:00, 2 January 2012 (EST)
-Force is defined as dp/dt, or (change in momentum) / (change in time). Say, over a period of time, the force imparts a momentum p to the moving object. Since momentum in the perpendicular direction is initially 0, its final momentum in the perpendicular direction will be p. <math>p=\gamma_ymv_y</math>. If the new momentum is small, <math>\gamma_y=1</math> (the gamma factor in the perpendicular direction), <math>v_y</math> = perpendicular velocity and m = rest mass. Thus the force will act on the rest mass.
-counterexample 8:
+== Previous arguments ==
-Actually, the results of an experiment provides good evidence of two predictions of general relativity: frame dragging and basic curvature. This is very recent and exciting news, so I couldn't resist adding one link:
-http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html#PRL_paper
-counter example 16:
+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)
-Not sure what this has to do with relativity, and it is ambiguous. (So for now, a change, not deletion would be nice)
-counterexample 24:
+:  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 concept of inertia is ill-defined, but it is kind of like resistance to change in velocity. However, there is a specific direction chosen, the direction of motion. Thus, symmetry is broken, so some direction can be preferred. In another, unrelated, example (just to show that symmetry can be broken), imagine a river flowing fairly fast. It is harder to swim 100 feet upstream than 100 feet downstream. Although it's 100 feet either way, one direction is preferred.
-counterexample 25:
+:  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)
-Actually, according to the relativistic formula <math>E^2 = m^2c^4+p^2c^2</math>, momentum is not strictly dependent on rest mass, but is dependent on energy as well. Since light has energy, it can have momentum under relativity.
-counterexample 31:
+:: 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)
-Vectors don't have unique inverses under dot or cross multiplication. However, you can multiply all vectors v by <math>1/|v|</math> (|v| is the length of the vector) and get the unit vector in that direction. (Which you can do with time.)
-counterexample 35:
+::::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.
-I found this image online, but it shows the idea. Each point (x, t) in the barns frame corresponds to a point in the ladder's frame (x', t'). I will say that it is intuitively weird. The point when the end of the ladder enters the barn is A. The point when the front of the ladder leaves the barn is B. A and B have the same time coordinate in the barn's rest frame, but, in the ladders frame, A has a latter time coordinate than B.
-http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/en-labs/9/9a/Polebarn.GIF - Added by Kitcher
-: You make some good points. Maybe the list ought to be divided into "physical anomalies related to relativity" and "counter-intuitive aspects of relativity".
+::::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)
-: If you adopt the philosophy that one counterexample disproves the theory, then it is not clear why so many need to be listed. It invites others to reason that if one of these 35 arguments is wrong, then the whole page is discredited.
-: The Gravity Probe B paper is still not posted. I am surprised that the project leaders made such a big splash over this, with no paper to back up what they say. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:05, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
-== Mass and Momentum (25)==
+::::: 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)
-"Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum. "
-I'm confused how this is a counterexample to relativity. Relativity does say that anything traveling at the speed of light must have 0 rest mass, but it does not make the claim that something of zero mass has zero momentum. It's a rather famous equation that <math> E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2</math>. Zero mass in the context of special relativity then simply implied that <math>E = pc</math> for massless particles. It's also true that the laws of electrodynamics require light to have momentum, but I'm confused, if you follow this line of reasoning is it trying to imply that light has mass given the premise of this counterexample? Photons have <math> E=pc</math> fits perfectly well in the context of relativity and is self-consistent as far as I'm aware. ([[User:Madblueplanet|Madblueplanet]] 09:01, 20 June 2011 (EDT))
-:It looks rather obvious that the person who wrote the list of alleged Einstein's errors interprets terms not in the same way as contemporary physicists would. Whoever set the list should consult it with a physicist freshly from school since many terms in common language don't need to have the same meaninig in physics as they had in Einstein's times. E.g. word ''"mass"'' denoted now by ''m'', itself changed its meaning between Einstein's and contemporary times. It is presently the ''invariant mas'' while before, e.g. in ''"Feynman lectures on physics"'' <math>m</math> was strictly ''relativistic mass'' while ''"invariant mass"'' had to be denoted <math>m_o</math> which still causes endless arguments between physicists and engineers or chemists who each might use different conventions. It looks silly when alleged Einstein's error turns out to be due only to misunderstanding of a physical term. In Einstein's times photons, as today, had mass <math>m=h\nu/c^2</math> and only their <math>m_o=0</math>, which today is written <math>m=0</math> but only because '''idea''' of "mass" chaged, not its physics. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 15:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
+:::::: 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)
-== Correcting example #3 (Pioneer "anomaly") ==
+::::::: 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)
-For many years I'm trying to publish in any scientific peer reviewed establishment journal (to avoid accusations of crankery) the news that according to physics of Einstein's general relativity the universe works slightly differently than scientific establishment assumes. The most important difference is that the so called "cosmological redshift" is not produced by expansion of universe but by an interesting effect of relativity of time, verifyiable with simple, almost Newtonian math, by any bright high shool student. This effect is time running slower in deep space than at (any) observer proportionally to exponent of ratio of the distance between observer and the point in deep space to so called "Einstein's radius of curvature of space". Equally important part of this effect is that it predicts Pioneer "anomaly" within one standard deviation being about as it is observed <math>(7\times 10^{-10}m/s^2)</math>. I'm supplying here the paper that might support this bright high school student in his/her calculations of this effect that I call ''[http://www.fuw.edu.pl/~wjast/160.htm Hubble time dilation]'' and consider it being overlooked by all the Big Bang aficionados insisting on expansion of universe against better judgement of Einstein.
+:::::::: 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)
-A sad part of this story is that Einstein was right in his assumption that the universe is stationary (non expanding) and his critics supporting LeMaitre wrong but Einstein gave up arguing with [http://www.fuw.edu.pl/~wjast/3268.htm#fo idiots] to be able to work peacefully on other projects. And now we have a lame hypothesis of ''Big Bang'' which is physically impossible (for its creation of energy from nothing), and scientific establishment who refuses for years to peer review papers supporting Einstein's original idea accidentally turning out right. As Einstein told a journalist asking how to make a discovery: ''"Very simple, when all the wise men decide that something can't be calculated, comes an ignorant who does not know it, and calculates it."'' What just happened in my case, but I might gladly show my calculations to any intelligent high school student to prove that he or she can make them too, despite that all the wise men couldn't. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 15:53, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
+:::::: 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)
-== Correcting example #1 <math>(G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu})</math> ==
+::::::::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.
-Contrary to the above equation, the original Einsteinian equation was <math>R_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi T_{\mu\nu}</math>, where <math>R_{\mu\nu}</math> is ''"[[Ricci tensor]]"'' and <math>T_{\mu\nu}</math> is ''"[[Stress-energy tensor]]"'', which is much simpler and does not contain <math>G_{\mu\nu}</math> that was introduced by authors of 1973 ''"Gravitation"'' to suggest the need for expansion of the universe but turned out to be not necessary when ''"[[Hubble time dilation]]"'' (HTD) entered the picture in 1985 and explained the redshift in stationary ''"[[Einstein's universe]]"'' <ref>See ''"[[Einsteinian gravitation]]"''.</ref>.
-==References==
+::::::::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)
-<references/>
-== A point of view on this article ==
+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)
-Hi! First of all, please excuse me for my awful english. I'm a huge fan of Conservapedia in general, and of this article in particular: I've found the points 11 and 12 of this list (the "action-at-a-distance" points) incredibily inspired, so I use sometimes these points as sign at the end of posts in some forums.
+:::::::::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)
+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)
-First of all, as I've seen during my physics studies, there is no such thing as "liberal physics", just physics.
+::::::: 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.
-Physicists can have different opinions on specific topics, and it's a good thing: finding who is wrong is the only way to make scientific progress.
+::::::: 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)
-When a new phenomenon is discovered, the first thing to do is to find out if the known physics laws can describe it: this may be called a "conservative" point of view. But if this is not possible new laws have to be found: you may call them "liberal laws".
-The special theory of relativity, though, is not object of debates, so actually the physicists are '''conservative''' in beliving
+:::::::::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)
-that a lot of phenomena can be explained using the relativity theory.
-This article pretends to be a page about science. Well, it turns out that it is a (wonderful) ''pure nonsense'' page (I really love nonsense!). There are conceptual errors, absurdities, even miracles (I hope that you won't call them "scientific proofs")...
+:::::::::: 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)
-for example, points 7, 11, 29, 31, 32 are all manifestly wrong, as
-everyone with a little knowledge of physics can confirm. Point 13: no one is searching gravitons.
-Point 25: if an object is moving in one direction,
-then physics '''should''' distinguish among the directions (and, in fact, it does).
-The classic aether <u>does not exist</u>.
+:::::::::::: 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)
-Not all the points are wrong, though. The necessity of dark matter and dark energy in the current cosmological models it's a problem well known
+:::::::::::: There are a lot of anomalies and paradoxes in quantum mechanics also. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)
-to the experts. There are two possibilities: one can prove experimentally that these entities exists ''and/or'' general relativity is wrong
-on large scales. My opinion (but it's just an opinion) is that the dark matter exists (it has been observed in galaxy collisions, for example), but
-general relativity has to be modified on large scales (maybe a quantum theory of gravitation could help?).
-So: most of the points are trash. Some of the points are quite right indeed (not the Bible ones, at least if you want to write an article
+== A few more things ==
-about science). And, for the sake of correctness, someone should write a page with phenomena explained by relativity that aren't
-explained in the framework of classical mechanics and electrodynamics.
-This is only my POV, obviously. But if Conservapedia wants to be a source of knowledge (regardless the "conservative" or "liberal" point of view)
+All right, more problems with this article:
-you have to write facts, not nonsense. I'm a Conservapedia fan for the nonsense, so this advice is against my interests :P
-p.s. I see that my advice is, in fact, the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|first commandment]] of Conservapedia.
+<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)
-Have a nice day, [[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 08:18, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
+::Very well said!  While I'm in a commenting-frenzy, I'd like to add to your points.
-: You say, "there is no such thing as 'liberal physics,' just physics."  But obviously an [[atheistic]] view of the world is going to lean towards atheistic explanations, no matter how implausible.  Moreover, [[liberals]] are often unwilling to admit that they are wrong about anything, leaving them clinging to theories for decades after they should have been rejected.  See, e.g., [[Piltdown Man]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:15, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
+::'''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."
-:: ... and so? Physics, and science in general, is the study of interconnections among natural phenomena, not between natural and supernatural ones. This other thing is called "metaphysics" ("beyond-nature"). Do you see? Even the ancient greeks knew the difference.
+::'''Re: #18.'''  Relativity HAS led to other [http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/relativity/discoveries-relativity-made-possible.htm|insights].
-::But this is not the point. You're probably the first and main writer of this page, so I'll talk directly to you. Do you care if some of the points of the article are wrong of not? How did you verify the correctness of the sentences?
-::(Curiosity: if you don't think that the theory of relativity gives a good description of the world, how do you explain the relativistic effects... without relativity? I mean, for example, the costance of the speed of light, or the different mean lives of instable particles when they are at rest or in motion). --[[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 15:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
-:::An example of [[atheistic]] bias in science is the view of some that evolution '''''must somehow be true regardless of the facts'''''.  A similar attitude is taken towards the [[Theory of Relativity]].  But the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] are overwhelming.  Yes, the counterexamples are true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:54, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
+::'''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)
-::::Andy, you have not answered, and we're talking about Relativity, not Evolution... '''Why''' do you say that these counterexamples are true? How have you verified these statements? Did some physics professor, or more generally, a relativity expert, told you? Are they written on some physics book? (I doubt it) --[[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 20:33, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
+:::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)
-:::::The counterexamples are well-supported by citations or obvious logic.  The internet is popular for learning because books have limitations of being outdated and subject to biased censorship.  If you want to limit learning to what is written in books, rather than using logic as well as the most recently available information, then why are you even discussing science on the internet?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:39, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
+:::::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?
-Ok, let's use logic, then :D Point 32: given a four-vector p<sup>µ</sup>=(p<sup>0</sup>,p<sup>1</sup>,p<sup>2</sup>,p<sup>3</sup>), the inverse vector
+:::::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)
-is defined as  q<sup>µ</sup>=(-p<sup>0</sup>,-p<sup>1</sup>,-p<sup>2</sup>,-p<sup>3</sup>). As you can easily check, p<sup>µ</sup>+q<sup>µ</sup> is the null four-vector, and this holds for every p<sup>µ</sup>. A negative time component is not absurd, it just relates with events happened in the past.
-This is math, not physics, ok? It is true because the Lorentz vectors are ''defined'' this way.
-Another example: it is written, or seems so to a reader, that relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatibile (point 20). This is not true at all, since relativistic quantum theories like Quantum Electrodynamics are the most successful theories in the history of physics. They work in curved spacetime too, if you keep fixed the geometry. The absurdities emerge when you try to "animate" the gravity field, ant it's an open research field.
-Another one: the Higgs field (point 31) has nothing to do with aether. The classical aether was meant to be the media in which light propagates, the Higgs field not. In fact, the light propagates in vacuum. I want to stress this point: aether does not exist, it is known by more than a century. (and I hope that
+::::::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)
-in a couple of years will be found out that the Higgs field doesn't exist, too)
-This is one of the best (16): "The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics." Relativity
+:::::::Can I please delete these "counterexamples"? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:32, 12 January 2012 (EST)
-is the skeleton of all the theories that describe ''all'' the nature's forces. For example, antimatter is a consequence of relativity.
-It seems that your scientific internet-based knowledge is quite updated... (and, yes, relativity is useful. Try thinking to the positron-electron tomography).
-I'll ask you again: do you think that the speed of light is constant for every observer or varies? --[[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 07:41, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
-:Since Schlafly is not responding, I'm asking to every other user: why this page is still unedited? I remember to you all the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|first commandment]] (and the laughs that this page causes all over the world :D). I don't want to edit the page without the consense of other users (Schlafly ''in primis''), so I think I'll wait... --[[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 16:40, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
+::::::::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.
-:: The entry is supported by citations and logic.  To take your highest-ranking criticism (point 16), the fact is that the [[theory of relativity]] has yielded nothing of value.  Contrast that with real physical insights, like [[quantum mechanics]], which have produced tremendous progress.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:12, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
+::::::::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.
-::: This is you opinion, not the opinion expressed, for example [http://www.hindawi.com/journals/mpe/2008/410156/ here], [http://scholar.google.it/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Relativity+in+the+future+of+engineering%22&btnG=Cerca&lr=&as_sdt=0 here], [http://www.springer.com/physics/particle+and+nuclear+physics/book/978-3-540-20623-1?cm_mmc=Google-_-Book%20Search-_-Springer-_-0 here] (do you think lasers are useless?) or [http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/8/10/247 here] (the mathematical tools of general relativity used to understand metamaterials... some times ago I attended a conference in which explained why the electrons in graphene could be well described with general relativity-like formulas).
+::::::::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)
-::: So, do not repeat "citations and logic" again and answer these easy questions: do you think that p<sup>µ</sup>+q<sup>µ</sup> is the null vector or not? (It's math easily handled even by children...) And the most important question: do you think that the speed of light is a constant or not? --[[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 07:50, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
-::::Since user ASchlafly is not giving appropriate answers, I'm going to delete a few entries, those corresponding uniquely to pure fantasy and without citations: (7), (8), (13), (16), (26), (32), (33). This is a pretty... ''conservative'' choice. I don't think that any user (except ASchlafly) disagrees with the deletion, but if it's not the case please '''write here''' why any of these points is worth consideration. --[[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 07:37, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+These counterexamples are not adequately rebutted above:
-:::::I fail to see how any of the above equals a consensus on the changes you propose. In fact it looks to me like there's a profound disagreement on these points. That being so, I'm reverting your changes. Please don't make major changes to controversial articles without consensus. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
-Ok, fair enough. So, how many users here think that these points are correct? (And why? Any citations?) And how many disagree with that point?
+: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.
-I'll start giving proof of citations of these points:
-(7) The limit is not taken in E=γmc² (m is the invariant mass) but in E² = (pc)² + (mc²)². If m=0 then E=|p|c: the ratio between the magnitude of the speed '|v|' and the speed of light 'c' is given by (|p|c)/E, so |v|=c. There is no discontinuity: these formulas can be found on every basic relativity textbook.
+. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
-(8) <u>The relativistic one, but it's a coincidence</u>. The longitudinal inertia is proportional to γ³m (which is not the relativistic mass), the transverse inertia to γm (which is the relativistic mass). Inertia, rest mass and relativitstica mass have different meanings, they coincide only when the particle is much slower than light. Please note that same effect is also present in the electromagnetic theory (inertia caused by the self-interaction between a charged object and his own electromagnetic field) ''without'' using relativity.
+:If you can give examples in your own words, then please do.
-See, for example: Lorentz, H.A. (1899), "[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dwc.knaw.nl%2FDL%2Fpublications%2FPU00014586.pdf&rct=j&q=Lorentz%2C%20H.A.%20(1899)%2C%20%22Simplified%20Theory%20of%20Electrical%20and%20Optical%20Phenomena%20in%20Moving%20Systems%22%20filetype%3Apdf&ei=UtNDTu6iDcPQsgaG5Nn0Bw&usg=AFQjCNFdeh3z8bGjXCGF3sVO5vfjrz2VZQ&sig2=ZTmtnZRgRwCY7LGxkC17uw&cad=rja Simplified Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Systems]", Proc. Roy. Soc. Amst.: 427-442.
-(13) I've never heard about an experiment that aimed to the direct search of gravitons. Physicists don't expect to find gravitons in particle or astroparticle experiments, their theoretical (tree-level) cross section is too small (please excuse me for the jargon). This entry needs citations
+. 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
-from academic sources, but I doubt strongly they exist at all.
-(16) An example: Relativistic Field Theories (see [[Quantum field theory]]). Some Nobel prizes in physics were given for work on RFTs.
+: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)
-(26) As I demostrated before, E=|p|c. (E means energy, |p| means the magnitude of the momentum)
+:::'''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.
-(32) Given any 4-vector p^µ, the '''opposite''' 4-vector is defined as q^µ=-p^µ. Negative times are related with events happened in the past, the opposite 4-vector has noting to do with the time arrow or the second law of thermodynamics. (What does "the inverse of time" mean, exactly?!)
+:::'''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.
-(33) Definitely not. The light speed has been experimentally proven costant from more than a century: currently there is a plethora
+:::'''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.
-of experiments giving bounds on speed of light variations with direction or frequency (type "speed of light" in Google Scholar), so the aether can't exist. (there are currently theories that predict variations in the speed of light like the "doubly special relativity", but at present time they're not supported by experiments).
-p.s. I shouldn't remark that Schlafly, not me (or <u>'''all the others before me'''</u>), should prove his affermations, since mine are mathematical truth or facts that anyone can easily verify (or math that anyone can verify by himself). --[[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 08:51, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
+:::These counterexamples are not valid.  Plain and simple. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 01:10, 13 January 2012 (EST)
-: (7) as velocity approaches c, momentum becomes undefined rather than approaching the momentum of light
+:::: 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)
-: (8) orthogonality breaks down if it is the relativistic mass, which would create logical problems
+:::::Um...I ''did'' address all your concerns, Andy....
-: (13) see [http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v57/i4/p2061_1] (time taken to find - 2 minutes on the internet)
+<blockquote>
+These counterexamples are not adequately rebutted above:
-: (16) Nobel Prizes are politicized - witness Barack Obama winning one despite accomplishing nothing.  A true theory becomes the basis for real insights.  Relativity has not.
+. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
-: (26) your point does not address the claim.
+: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!!!'''
-: That's enough for now.  Do you still have any objections to counterexamples 1-6, or 9-12?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:43, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
-:: (7) That's what you say, but you haven't ''proved'' it yet. On the other hand, I '''proved''' that momentum is perfectly well defined.
+: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!'''
-:: P.s. another proof, taking the m->0 limit in E=γmc^2. It can be done, keeping E and c fixed, while m->0. You see that γ must go to infinity: well, it means that <math>1/\gamma^2=1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}\to 0</math>, or <math>v\to c</math>. <math>\gamma m</math> is finite in this limit and the momentum reads <math>p=\gamma m v = E v/c^2 \to E /c </math>.
-:: (8) Which logical problems? Are you disturbed by the fact that orthogonal and transverse masses are different? A disturb is not a concectual problem at all. Why don't you link some scientific article saying that this is a logical problem that proves inconsistency of the theory?
-:: (13) You should pay attention to the abstracts. This guy reports limits on observations that could be made with experiments designed to search for gravitational waves (such as LIGO and VIRGO), not gravitons (this is another point). So, this is not a valid source. Can you tell me an experiment designed to catch gravitons?
+. 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
-:: (16) I agree on Obama's nobel: peace Nobels are definitely politicized. This is not so true for the other prizes, though. Now you have to cite some article saying that the standard model, or every other relativity-based theory, isn't a great insight: as before, you ''say'' that but you don't ''prove'' that.
+: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>
-:: (26) Or maybe you cannot read formulas: I'll repeat for the sake of clearness. If m=0 then E=|p|c, so that massless particles can have nonzero momentum if and only if they have nonzero energy: they're directly proportional. Actually, a photon with energy E has a momentum equal to E/c.
+:::::(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)
-:: Don't be impatient, you have to justify these statements first (don't forget (32) and (33)). --[[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 07:20, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
+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)
-::P.s. I forgot: do you want a plot of ''v'' as a function of ''m'' so you can see with your eyes that there aren't any discontinuities in <math>m\to 0\,</math>? I can easily do it.
+== Recent reversion ==
-::: (7) Your analysis assumes that E is fixed, but that's not what point (7) states.
+[[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)
-::: (8) If a force in an orthogonal direction can affect inertia in the original direction, then orthogonality breaks down and lots of physical assumptions are violated.  Can you cite any authority for your claim?
+: 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)
-::: (13) [[LIGO]] is attempting to detect the existence of gravitons, as are other multi-million dollar tests.
+: 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)
-::: (16) If the Nobel Peace Prize is politicized -- and you concede it is -- then the other prizes are going to suffer from similar politicization.  How else would you explain the shocking humiliation of [[Fred Hoyle]] shortly after he criticized a claim of evolutionists, by giving the Nobel Prize in physics to his understudy on his project while omitting him?  Please don't say you weren't aware of this.
+::Does this make [[string theory]] conservative, as it is often labeled ''controversial''? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:12, 30 January 2012 (EST)
-::: Why are you focusing on items so far down the list?  What about counterexamples 1-6, and 9-12?  I hope you will concede that it takes only one counterexample to disprove [[Relativity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
+:::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)
-:::: (7) Well, your observation means only that you can't do limits properly. I can teach you if you want. (Have you studied math in college?)
+::: 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)
-:::: (8) In a certain sense you're correct: "standard" ortogonality breaks down because the metric is not Euclidean but Minkowskian. I made the calculus by myself on the basis of my rational mechanics and special relativity course book (which is in Italian), and I have cited Lorentz (1899, well before Einstein's theory). The same calculus is made [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Force here], but I think you won't accept it ;-) Unfortunately I have not textbooks in english about special relativity dynamics... I'll give you a reference asap.
-:::: (13) The acronym LIGO stands for '''Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory''', not '''Laser Interferometer Graviton Observatory'''. I've asked you for ''direct searches''. If they find waves with peculiar features ''maybe'' there is some model that explains these features in terms of gravitons, but it is a quite remote possibility.
-:::: (16) Really, I didn't knew it. Neither I care, of course. You are clinging to Nobels while I am saying the relativity is essential in the standard model, which basically explains almost all the particle physics experiments currently made. Remove the hands from your ears!
-:::: I'm focusing on these items because I want to make productive discussions and, after that, the '''deletion''' of the points considered. For example, if you think that points 1-6 and 9-12 are sufficient, you can delete all the others. You can surely delete (7-8-13-26-32-33) and merge (1) and (13), we'll talk about (1) later (miracles first!). (no, in my opinion that list does not contain any valid counterexample. But general relativity is far from being safe from this point of view: I told you that not all the points are totally wrong...)--[[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 08:13, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
-: I've been patiently addressing your questions, but you didn't fully answer mine: do you concede that it takes only one counterexample to disprove relativity?
+::::::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)
-: Your response to point (16) speaks volumes.  The Nobel prizes are heavily politicized ... all of them.  To claim that one prize is politicized but another is not is unpersuasive.  Anyone who publicly criticizes relativity can forget about ever winning a Nobel prize in anything, or even getting tenure anywhere.  That's politics, not science, and that's the reality.  Hopefully you can at least admit that.
+== 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]
-: On point (7), I think there is circularity in your argument, assuming what it is at issue by insisting that E remain constant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:05, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
+: 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)
-::It's not so easy as you think. To invalidate a theory with an experiment you have to carefully consider every other aspect that could influence the measure. If a theory works good, but a new experiment finds that in some conditions the theory doesn't work anymore, the experiments has not falsified the theory, but only proven that this theory has a finite range of applications. Examples are Newtonian mechanics, classical electromagnetism, even nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. Today general relativity has not been proved correct on big scales, while it works correctly within the solar system. Special relativity is thought not to have similar (distance) limits, but may have corrections due to quantum gravity, which today are only conjectured and not seen experimentally. I'll tell you a secret: "true" theories do not exist, and all the theories have limits of applicability. Today we don't know the limits of both relativity theories, because they agree with ''all'' current experiments.
+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:
-::(16) The truth is that who doesn't know relativity is ignoring 100 years of history of physics.
+[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:48, 17 March 2012 (EDT)
-::Andy, let me explain to you some math stuff. Suppose you have a function of two variables, e.g. ''f(x,y)''. Suppose you want to change the value of the first variabile: what does the second? Well, you have to decide it: you can keep ''y'' to a fixed value, or you can change ''y'' as ''x'' varies: in this case ''y'' become a function of ''x'': ''y=g(x)''. The original expression becomes ''f(x,g(x))'' and is a 1-variable function, that you can call ''h(x)''. In other words, you have to specify a trajectory in the ''(x,y)'' plane. This is also the way limits work: you have to specify the trajectory.
-::In our case we want to send ''m'' to zero. And the other variabiles (energy, momentum, speed)? Since the relation ''E²=(pc)²+(mc²)²'' holds, energy and momentum are not indipendent. If you vary ''m'', ''E'' and ''p'' cannot be both costant. A possible choice is keeping fixed ''E'' and vary ''p'', but you can also vary ''E'' keeping ''p'' fixed. Or you can vary both, specifying a function ''E(m)'' or ''p(m)'', as before. You might think that the final result can depend on the limit choice, and this is indeed the case for ''E'' and ''p''. BUT, when ''m=0'' you have ''E²=(pc)²'' for every path choice. A a consequence, the speed of the particle equals the speed of light for any energy or momentum value, since the relation ''v=c(pc/E)'' holds for every mass. If you take the limit keeping ''p'' fixed you'll obtain exactly the same speed for the particle. No circularities.
-::Andy, what will you do with these points? --[[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 08:58, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
-== Attempt at Helping the Consensus Along ==
+: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)
-Well, MM87 and Jcw, if you're looking for a consensus of other people to join in on this subject, you're not going to be particularly gratified by the result.  Nearly everyone who knows or cares about the topic has been driven off or has otherwise left, especially people who accept the premises of Einsteinian relativity or the interpretations of same that are accepted by the scientific community.  But I'll give it a try.  This is just a quick summary; no time to go into detail.
+:::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)
-.  True, the ''direct'' search for gravity waves has not yet yielded any results, though indirect observations have been made (Hulse/Taylor.)  Before people dismiss indirect observations, recall that no one has ever seen an electron.  Whether the LIGO and LISA experiments are a good use of money is another question; one that has no bearing on whether relativity is correct.
+::::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)
-.  Rubbish.  You can't take every new observation that we don't yet have an explanation for and say that that disproves relativity.  Relativity never claimed it would neatly, precisely, and straightforwardly explain every future observation of everything.
+:::::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)
-.  Is the Pioneer anomaly ''still'' in here?  It was never about relativity.  It is 1000 times greater than the difference between Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics.  In any case, it seems to have been solved recently by consideration of the reflection of radiation off the back of the antenna dish.
+:::::: 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)
-.  See 2 and 3.
+::::::: 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)
-.  Not related to relativity (except insofar as the fact that gravity exists.)  Large-scale galaxy dynamics is complicated.  People are working on it.  If someone wants to make a contribution to this field that involves replacing relativity, go right ahead.
+:::::::: 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)
-   See extensive discussion with user KSorenson, for example.  GR does a spectacularly good job of explaining the precession.  There may still be tiny deviations from the current best observations, but there are an enormous number of complex things going on.  People have moved on.  If someone wants to continue beating this dead horse, go right ahead.
+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)
-.  Rubbish, based on profound misunderstanding.  See MM87's debunking.
+''Italic text''== GPS and Relativity ==
-.  The terms "rest mass" and "relativistic mass", as distinct quantities, is archaic.  Read some reasonably modern textbooks, and the confusion should be cleared up.
+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)
-.  What?  Is there some confusion between local curvature (which is undeniable; it causes gravity) and global curvature?  Remember that the curvature tensor is very complicated.  You can't just throw around terms like "overall curvature."  The subject is complicated.  In any case, plain Einsteinian GR admits a number of global solutions (LeMaitre, Friedmann, etc.)  Working out the problems of overall structure of the universe does not refute relativity.
+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.
-. The fact that quantum mechanics and relativity have not been ''totally'' reconciled is well known.  That doesn't disprove either, except insofar as it suggests that the future "grand unified theory" will expand on both and thereby differ, in its details, from both.  Also, keep in mind that the "standard model" is a "relativistic field theory".  It (and the Dirac equation before it) unifies relativity and quantum mechanics far better than this page would suggest.
+<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>
-. See 10.
+== Biblical Examples ==
-. See 10.  Also, few people believe that the events related in the Bible had been measured to microsecond accuracy; the tools for doing so had not been invented.  Also, even modern medicine can't measure the time of "cures" or "healing" to microsecond accuracy.  Of course, if you are really just saying "The Bible says that relativity is wrong, and that settles it", so be it.
+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)
-. No one ever expected to observe gravitons.  That calculations show that it is well-nigh impossible.  This is known.  No experiments have ever been devised, suggested, or funded for this purpose.
+== The roundness of the sun ==
-. See 10.  Also, relativity doesn't say that ''everything'' is the same.  The view from my house is different from the view from your house.
+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)
-. See 2.
+== Gravitational waves found ==
-. Unfathomable.
+[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19408363 BBC article]
-. Utterly irrelevant.  See 2.
+[https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211 LIGO] [[User:Mark CS|Mark CS]] ([[User talk:Mark CS|talk]]) 22:35, 20 January 2017 (EST)
-. Unfathomable.  See 2.
+== Lede quote ==
-. See 2 and 10.
+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)
-. See 2 and 10.
+: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)
-. Interesting speculation (science is full of them); see 2.
+==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.
-. Misunderstanding of the dynamics of black holes.  It's a complicated subject.
+: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)
-. They're not doing the experiment any more.  It did its job, and it's finished.  No one drops cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa any more either.
+::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)
-. See 16.
+== 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.
-. Profound misunderstanding of the subject.  See 8.
+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)
-. See 7, 8, and 25.
+==#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)
-. There are no "conditions of a conservative field".  This is just confused.  See extensive discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ACounterexamples_to_Relativity&action=historysubmit&diff=801452&oldid=799266 here].  (Sorry about all the extraneous material.)
+: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)
-. Not a paradox.  The subject is complicated.  Ehrenfest did not disprove relativity.
+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)
-. See 28.  Einstein did not say that.  The footnote muddies the waters.  The twin paradox is well known.
+::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)
-. The claims of that item are preposterous.  "Made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction?"  Ridiculous.  Read the cited paper carefully.  It (like all the other cited papers) does not refute relativity.
+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)
-. Rubbish.  The Michelson-Morley "luminiferous aether" is not the Higgs field.  See 10.
+== Protect this page ==
-. Profound misunderstanding of vector spaces.
+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)
-. No.  Such experiments have been conducted many times.  Relativity is universally accepted.
+== Set back to version of 1 December -- explanation ==
-. Uh, no.
+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.
-. They are not "beyond understanding".  They are beyond closed-form solution.  Cosmologists work with approximate solutions all the time.
+While I disagree with much of the content of the page, it should not be diluted by well-meaning editors.  Here is why:
-[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:36, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
+*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.
-: Sam, logic and science are not determined by "consensus".  Of course, for a variety of reasons, many people dare not question liberal theories.  Anyone who hopes to win a Nobel Prize, for example, would be foolish to criticize [[Relativity]] because that would prevent him from ever winning the prize.  But here we're more concerned about the truth than what others may think.
+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 reviewed your points 1-5 and was not persuaded by any of them.  For example, gravity waves do not exist.  Liberals should stop wasting the public's money looking for them.  There's no point in proceeding to your criticism of other points, because just one counterexample is enough to disprove Relativity.  Hopefully you'll at least concede that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:15, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
+::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)
+:::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)
-:: Moving further down your list, your response on point 6 is particularly unpersuasive.  The increasingly precise data disprove the theory.  It's that simple.  If scientists have "moved on" in an attempt to avoid addressing this discrepancy, then that's politics rather than good science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
+::::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)
-:::SamHB, I really appreciate your intervent. Andy, you're right, logic and science are not determined by consensus, but if someone's logic fails someone else should tell him, don't you think? Why are you so firm in keeping this page in this form when there are (lots of) people who ''knows'' what are they talking about? --[[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 08:29, 15 August 2011 (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, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:41, 25 April 2013 (EDT)
-::::SamHB, MM87, and Andy: there is a very good reason why this page should be kept. The reason is just not to repeat the same objections against relativity over and over. It may be better organized but not by removing silly objections but explaining them slowly point by point by a competent physicists (possibly an experimentalist, of Feynman type, if such types are still around). As e.g. I tried to explain objection #3 (Pioneer anomaly). Potentially wrong explanation but also turning attention of "relativists" (if they read this page) to the existence of competing explenation that otherwise may be ignored. If they don't read it then they should since it may contain some good ideas that may help them in keeping [[science]] at a proper level. E.g. #3 may seem to be explained but it may be also a prejudice based on a possibly false assumption that the universe is expanding. Which may be just an optical illusion as I try to point out elsewhere. This illusion is within 1 standard deviation off the "Pioneer anomaly". Of course it might be a coincidence but may be an indication that the expansion of the universe is really an illusion. As all other "coincidences", including quasars, non symmetric metric tensor of flat spacetime, and impossibility to create energy from nothing, seem to indicate and yet being all kept in the "standard cosmological model". [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 19:12, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
+:Good clarification.   Edit mad as suggested.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:13, 16 December 2014 (EST)
-:::::Jim, the standard cosmological model is not safe from being falsified (however, which theory is?), and the are a lot of competiting models (like yours). This page is not meant to describe the problems of the current cosmological model, but to discredit relativity ''in toto'', and who wrote this page clearly does not know anything about relativity. I think that a new page with "open problems in cosmology" or "open problems in physics" would be warmly welcome, but must be written by some expert in the field. --[[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 09:17, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
+== Parodist ==
-::::::Relativity is a mathematically complete system that is either true or false ''in toto''.  Pretending that Relativity can be true despite a counterexample against it is like saying that a number can be partially prime.
+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)
-::::::The problem, of course, is that no one who wants tenure, a Nobel Prize, or even self-esteem within the liberal university system dares admit that Relativity might not be true.  That alone is telling:  if Relativity were true, then there would not be the need for it to be propped up by political pressure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:27, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
+:Yes, those additions should be removed.  Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:10, 16 December 2014 (EST)
-:::::::"Propped up by political pressure"? Maybe you are talking about string theory...
+::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)
-:::::::Newtonian mechanics is a mathematically complete system that is either true or false ''in toto''. So is the Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. From your point of view, they're both totally wrong, since there is a huge number of counterexamples (they aren't even compatibile each other), but physicists teach these theories to students everyday. Why don't you attack them in the same way as you attack relativity? --[[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 15:14, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
-:::::::: That's not true about Newtonian mechanics.  Its exponents can be tweaked and its equations revised based on observation.  Not so for Relativity.
+::My apologies, the solenoid item was added by Mr. Schlafly himself. So, not parody. [[User:AlexanderS|AlexanderS]] 16:59, 4 January 2015 (EST)
-:::::::: Liberals already teach that Newtonian mechanics is fundamentally incorrect, so there is little reason to add to that (often false) criticism.  In contrast, liberals insist that Relativity must be true and they punish anyone who dares claim otherwise.  That needs to be challenged, but don't expect anyone who is a university grad student or professor wannabee to dare to do so.  His career will be over if he utters any criticism of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:20, 16 August 2011 (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)
-::::::::: Where have you read that this is not true about Newtonian Mechanics? Academic sources, please.
+== Action-at-a-distance according to the Bible ==
-::::::::: With "liberals" are you referring also to non-physicists? Because, as you can easily imagine, their opinions don't have much value... --[[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 15:43, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
-:::::::::: I'm referring to academic physicists - a very liberal group indeed.  Probably 80% or more of them voted for Obama, for example.  Do you doubt it?
-:::::::::: The advance of the perihelion of Mercury (point 6) can be explained in Newtonian mechanics by tweaking the exponent of distance in the basic gravity equation.  But no amount of tweaking is possible in Relativity to make the theory fit the data.  So the liberals simply ignore the most recent data, and censor any criticism of Relativity based on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
+{{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]].}}
-::::::::::: No, I think that most of US physicists are liberals, too. A lot of them are also atheists or agnostics. But I simply don't see the link between liberalism, or moral relativitsm, or whathever you want, and the physical theory of relativity. I don't see it because it doesn't exist. Physical laws are purely a reflection of nature's laws: if you don't like relativity, well, you don't like the way nature behaves. This has nothing to do with humans behaviour or politics. While in other "sciences" (such as economics and psychology) there are a lot of contrasting paradigms, in physics experiments rules. A lot of paradigms (such as "all is made of matter", "movement is absolute" and things like that) were abandoned in the history of science because of experiments (I don't think this is true for economics, for example), not politics. This mechanism stops when theory is not comparable with experiments, such in the string theory case: in this case, research is driven in the direction of the mainstream thought for non-scientifical reasons (as you was saying before talking about relativity, today - or since some years ago - every young theoretical particle physicist in US had to study string theory to have the chance to have an academic career). But this is definitely not the case for Relativity, since the experimental proofs are '''overwhelming'''.
+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.
-::::::::::: Ok, maybe is possible to modify Newton's gravity law in order to explain the perihelion shift of Mercury. I did not verify this, but this time I'll trust you. Good. What about the speed of light? And what about the lifetime of particles near the speed of light? (don't forget to answer to the other points with reliable sources... or deleting points 7-8-13-16-26-32-33) --[[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 07:30, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
-::::::::::::The reality is that Relativity is '''''not''''' based on observations of nature, and never has been.  It's a mathematical theory and a worldview that liberals would like nature to obey.  But nature doesn't obey it.  The mathematical theory came first and for a century people have been trying to fit it to the data.  The fit isn't there, but liberals like the political effect of the theory so they don't permit criticism of it.  Can you cite anyone who won a Nobel Prize after criticizing Relativity?  [[Robert H. Dicke]] is an example of a great physicist who was denied the Nobel Prize because he dared criticize the liberal theory of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
+How could the servants spot a difference of ca. 1/10.000 seconds? Answer: they couldn't
-:::::::::::::Quick question (from someone who doesn't know science all to well) what is the "political effect" of the theory of relativity? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:23, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
+*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!
-:::::::::::: It is true that there are Einstein biographers who claim that he invented relativity from pure thought, without attention to experiment. But it is not true that mathematical theory came first. Relativistic mass was already being tested in 1901, before Einstein. All of the original relativity papers cited experimental evidence. Eg, Minkowski said relativity was "grown on experimental physical grounds". See also my blog.[http://blog.darkbuzz.com/2011/08/favoring-empiricist-conception-of.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:13, 18 August 2011 (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).
-@MaxFletcher: I've never noticed "political effects" of Relativity, at least in Italy.
+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)
-@Aschlafly: In addition to RSchlafly's answer, let me ask you again (for the third or fourth time, I think): do you belive that the speed of light is costant for every observer or not? If the answer is not, you are ignoring hundreds of experiments that proved it beyond any reasonable doubt. If you don't trust all these experiments, you should believe that not only relativity, but every physical theory is flawed in this way: how can you trust physicists on, for example, quantum mechanics, or any other physical theory, if you think that they falsified so many relativity experiments?
+: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)
-A lot of scientists criticize relativity every day (both special and general). The difference between you and them is that they admit that relativity works rather well under all the actual tests, as it is an approximation of other theories (today untested). Relativity '''can't''' be completely right, but today works. --[[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 08:30, 18 August 2011 (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)
-:[[Poincare]] developed many of the challenging aspects of Relativity as a mathematical theory that he thought probably did '''''not''''' represent nature.  Very little of Relativity, if any of it, is based on observation.  Generally the theory came first, and then [[liberal]]s (like [[Arthur Eddington]]) fudged the data to try to make it fit the theory.  Today relativists simply stop reporting on the data as it diverges from the theory (e.g., perihelion advance of Mercury, and the [[binary pulsar]]).
+"''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)
-:I doubt that the speed of light has been constant throughout history, and I doubt that it is constant for all observers.  But note that Relativity is based on more assumptions than that.  It also assumes that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference in the universe are physically equivalent, which is particularly implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:40, 18 August 2011 (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)
-::You're really hard to convince!  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:45, 18 August 2011 (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)
-:: Poincare certainly thought that relativity represented nature, and relied on experiments. The experiments were: Michelson-Morley, the first order aether drift experiments, the tests of Maxwell's theory, such as magnetic induction, and the measurements of relativistic mass. These were all done before 1905. It is a myth that Einstein created relativity without experimental observation, and I thoroughly debunk it on my blog. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:36, 20 August 2011 (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.  --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:01, 19 March 2015 (EDT)
-::: You're defining Relativity very broadly to include Maxwell's equations, which of course were developed (and observed) long before the mathematical theory of relativity.  Yes, I'm sure that Poincare accepted Maxwell's equations, as did [[Robert H. Dicke]] and other modern critics of Relativity.
+===[[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)
-::: I looked for a quote I recall seeing about Poincare expressing skepticism that Relativity was physically true rather than being merely a mathematical theory, but I couldn't find it (yet).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:52, 20 August 2011 (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)
-:::: The important point is that relativity is compatible with Maxwell's equations while classical mechanics is not. So if you accept classical mechanics you cannot have Maxwell's equations, but with relativity you can. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 02:11, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
+== Widely Understood ==
-:::: Walter Kaufmann did experiments measuring the relativistic mass starting in 1901, and at one point he declared that the experiments favor a rival theory from Max Abraham. I think that Lorentz and Poincare conceded that these experiments, if confirmed, could prove Relativity wrong. Poincare did express skepticism that the aether was physically true. Also, there are Einstein biographers who concede that Poincare had all the Relativity formulas before Einstein, but insist on crediting Einstein because they claim that Poincare never understood Relativity. (I think that it is pretty crazy to say that someone could derive all of the formulas correctly and not understand them.) Perhaps you saw something connected to one of these matters.
+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)
-:::: Yes, nearly everyone defined Relativity to include Maxwells equations. Einstein certainly did. To him, the whole point of special relativity was to get a better understanding of Maxwells equations. Maxwells theory was the first relativistic theory, and Maxwell was the first relativist. I don't know how anyone could reject relativity without rejecting nearly everything we know about electromagnetism. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:53, 20 August 2011 (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)
-::::: I agree with your point about Poincare developing and understanding the equations.  Poincare was perhaps one of the top twenty geniuses of all time.  But I also think he was smart enough to be skeptical about whether the mathematical theory described physical reality!
+::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;
-::::: It's a common misconception that Relativity explains all of Maxwell's equations.  In fact, Relativity is contradicted by an induction experiment, which I've added as counterexample #36, with a reference.  I've seen at least one other paper talking about this problem, but of course most American (liberal) academics avoid talking about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:19, 20 August 2011 (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;
-:::::: Your reference says, "it is obvious that the electric filed directions in these two graphs are opposite, which is the inevitable result because Einstein haven’t pointed out clearly which one is the true moving and which one is the false one.", and that a followup paper will answer explanation is correct. Of course Einstein did not say which one is truly moving because Relativity teaches that motion is relative. The article is incoherent nonsense. Magnetic induction is explained in every textbook since Faraday. Poincare explained it also. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:03, 20 August 2011 (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)
-::::::: Again, you can't have Newtonian mechanics AND Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations aren't invariant under Galilean transformations, while they are under Lorentz transformations (as mentioned, that's how they were actually first discovered). Also, quantum electrodynamics is the most accurate theory we have and it combines special relativity, quantum mechanics AND electromagnetism. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:10, 20 August 2011 (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)
-This will be my final posting here.  I apologize for its length.
+===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.
-Of course, no one is suggesting that the truth of a scientific theory is determined by polls.  MM87 wasn't asking for a poll so that the issue of relativity could be settled.  He was asking whether there was any consensus among Conservapedia editors of their positions on the matter.  And he noted the extremely small number of interested people.  As one of that very small number, I thought I would reply.
+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]].}}
-The premise of this page is that theories can be refuted by counterexamples, and that even one counterexample would do it.  This is true, but the counterexamples need to be much more compelling than the 35 items listed.  Several of the items are are the form "this is complicated" (9, 18, 19, 20, 21), or "I don't understand this" (22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32), or "many textbooks explain it badly" (7, 8, 25, 26), or "there is some phenomenon somewhere that relativity doesn't explain" (2, 3, 4, 5, 14, 15, 17).
+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.
-Remember that the actions of Nobel committees or tenure committees or conference committees, or the perception that "liberals like it", as much as we might disagree with them, don't determine the correctness of a scientific theory.  Experiments and observations do.
+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!
-An example of something that refutes a theory would be an observation that is clearly at odds with the predictions of the theory, and that can't be explained away.  For example, observations of planetary motion refuted the Ptolemaic theory of epicycles and more epicycles.  (Actually it was the increasing number of epicycles needed to fit the observations, and the Copernican theory, that started the process.  Occam's Razor finished the job.)
+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).
-So what kind of observation would actually refute relativity?  Failure of the time dilation or length shortening of special relativity would do it, as would failure of gravitational time dilation.  Failure of light bending would do it, that is, no bending, or bending at 0.875 second instead of 1.75.  Failure of the Shapiro effect would do it.  Failure of the Lense-Thirring effect would call it into question, though the observations of the GPB are near the limits of our ability to measure.
+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)|}
+|}
+was
+{|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)
+|}
-Failure of planetary precession would do it.  But let me say something about that, since it has been discussed at length on many pages.  The Mercury measurements are very "noisy", making it not a good test if one is looking for incredible accuracy, that is, better than 42.98 second.  The actual precession is something like 5600, with an enormous amount of noise from other planets, solar oblateness, etc.  If one really wanted to claim that relativity is refuted because the 42.98 figure doesn't match exactly, one would have to go through all the sources of noise much more meticulously than anyone has.  One would also have to take into account asteroids that haven't been discovered yet&mdash;keep in mind that a new "trojan" asteroid at one of Earth's Lagrange points was discovered only a few weeks ago.  And remember, the Yarkovsky effect was undiscovered for years, as was the reflection of infrared radiation off the back of the Pioneer antenna dish.  Can you really say that you know, exactly, all the forces acting on Mercury?  Did you consider the frame-dragging effect from the Sun's rotation or the Yarkovsky effect?  My guess is that this has never been done.  There are much "cleaner" measurements that scientists can make than tracking all possible influences on Mercury's motion.  Examples of "clean" tests are the quasar measurements, the pulsar measurements, and the Shapiro effect.
+That was your whole argument! Sweet (predictable) irony! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:45, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
-Speaking of other ways of explaining the precession non-relativistically, Andy refers, above, again, to the "Newtonian exponent tweaking".  This is the Asaph Hall / Simon Newcomb hypothesis.  It was refuted, by actual observations, 100 years ago.  Please see the analyses that I wrote [http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_relativity#Fallacious_Claims_of_Experimental_Verification_of_Relativity here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:What_is_the_exponent_of_r_in_Newtonian_gravity%3F here].  The latter contains some pretty graphs that I made and that JacobB uploaded for me.
+<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>
-Andy is quite right in that general relativity does not have "tweakable parameters" to alter planetary precession.  Precession is determined by the planet's speed and the speed of light, which is, of course, not tweakable.  If one were to change the number <math>8 \pi</math> appearing in Einstein's equation, it would just tighten or loosen the orbit; the precession would not change.  Changing the "cosmological constant", that is, R<sub>00</sub>, would do the same thing.
+== Relativity Conflicts with Bible ==
-[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:45, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
+The Bible describes [[action at a distance]]. Relativity falsely denies it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:34, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
-: The Mercury measurements disagree with Relativity by more than the margin of error.  Due to the political pressure to prop up Relativity, scientists have simply stopped publishing and discussing the increasingly precise data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:52, 20 August 2011 (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.
-:: Sorry Andy, but you've been repeatedly shown to be wrong on this point. And can I ask ''what'' political pressure to prop up relativity? If I recall correctly the last government to comment on relativity was Hitlers, which regarded it in a highly negative manner. I think that the disgusting phrase used was "Jewish physics". [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 15:00, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
-==Open problems in cosmology==
+: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.
+:--[[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)
-Sam, MM87 is right so why not to use his advice and open a new section in which some of us try to work with cosmology rather than with relativity alone.
+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.  ==
-IMHO the main open problem in cosmology is the problem whether the universe is expanding or not. According to opinion of guys who look for careers in cosmology it is expanding (based on doctored Einstein's equation <math>R_{\mu\nu}-(R/2)g_{\mu\nu}+\Lambda g_{\mu\nu}=8\pi T_{\mu\nu}</math>) but in reality may be stationary <math>H_{\mu\nu}=-8\pi T_{\mu\nu}</math>, where <math>H_{\mu\nu}</math> is what I call ''"Hubble tensor"''. As it follows from his original equation that contained an error removed by Hilbert (mentioned also by MM87, non zero trace) and also patched later with cosmological constant to keep his ''Field Equation'' stable.
+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)
-So let's analyze the situation in cosmology: Why its ''"standard model"'' still contains the cosmological constant that Einstein considered ''"the biggest blunder of my life"''?
+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)
-My answer is this: because general relativity is most likely not Einstein's (a Patent Office clerk) but his wife's, Mileva Marić (a physicist way better than her husband), who as a woman didn't have a chance to publish such work as relativity and might have reason to be angry at her husband and so didn't want to show him the obvious way of getting rid of his cosmological constant (which doesn't exist anyway so it was not any loss to science).
+== The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51. ==
-Now, If I, a sculptor and an engineer knowing practicaly no tensor calculus (and almost no English) can show what Mileva Marić (a physicists and an astronomer, knowing "Einstein's theory" in and out) didn't tell her husband, would it be credible enough that it might have happened this way? And that the universe is really not expanding. As I keep saying since 1985, similarly as Mileva Marić, not being able to publish a paper, that the only referee who saw it couldn't falsify and so recommended its rejection only on faith in expansion. Would it? [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 15:34, 18 August 2011 (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.
-:Better than opening a new section, of this article, on cosmological problems, I would favor creating new pages for explaining/discussing it.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:47, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
+What is the result when both are equipped with the best sun-dials available?
-::Agree. What about ''"[[Problems in Cosmology]]"''. How do you like my story about Mileva Marić? [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 16:18, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
+Hilarity!
-::: I think that you are mixed up. Maric probably did help Einstein understand special relativity. But they had been divorced for a long time when the work was being published on general relativity, and she is not known to have had anything to to do with it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:25, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
+--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 03:54, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
-:::: It is not an "open problem" in cosmology whether the universe is expanding or not. It's accepted by cosmologists that it is (Google 'Hubble's law' for instance).
+== Consider removing point #1 ==
-:::: Einstein's motivation for the cosmological constant was indeed a mistake. He wanted a static universe and put the cosmological constant as a repellent term to explain why, if gravity is attractive, everything isn't just lumped up together. This doesn't work however, since the equilibrium created by adding the term isn't stable. Later physicists took a new interpretation of the cosmological constant as the energy density of the vacuum. It turns out Einstein's mistake wasn't adding a cosmological constant, but not putting it on the other side of his equation with the stress–energy tensor!
-:::: Anyway, the cosmological constant is still used because data suggest it exists. I highly doubt cosmologists have stuck to it because of the treachery of Einstein's wife. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:06, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
-:::::  ''''<math>H_{\mu\nu}=-8\pi T_{\mu\nu}</math>, where <math>H_{\mu\nu}</math> is what I call "Hubble tensor""''
-::::: It's mentioned [[Einsteinian_gravitation#Step_8._Flatness_of_spacetime|here]] that the the "Hubble tensor" is anti-symmetric. If so, this equation doesn't make sense since the stress-energy tensor, <math>T_{\mu\nu}</math>, is symmetric. The only way for the above equation to hold is if the "Hubble Tensor" and the stress-energy tensor are both zero ( <math>H_{\mu\nu}=-8\pi T_{\mu\nu} = -8\pi T_{\nu\mu}= H_{\nu\mu} = - H_{\mu\nu}</math> and <math>H_{\mu\nu} = - H_{\mu\nu} \Rightarrow H_{\mu\nu} = 0</math>). Actually, since in the linked article the "Hubble Tensor" is defined as the antisymmetric part of Ricci tensor it is exactly zero. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:44, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
-== Solenoid example ==
+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.
-First of all, the reference is to a post on a forum. This doesn't seem like a reliable source.
+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."
-Second, the poster presupposes a magnet going the speed of light. As mentioned in the forum, this violates relativity right off the back. You cannot presume relativity is false and then go to conclude relativity is false. That's circular reasoning. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:47, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
+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.
-:Physics journals won't publish evidence -- even indisputable data -- if it is counter to Relativity.  It's like expecting the ''Journal of the KGB'' to print an article criticizing communism.  It's not going to happen.  So the [[best of the public]], including internet forum, play an important role.
+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.
-:The logical contradiction arises if the solenoid is going near the speed of light also, something Relativity is supposed to allow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:00, 21 August 2011 (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